Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROMARTY FIRTH PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CORFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Hector Monro presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 8 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Cromarty Firth Port Authority; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 3rd July and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Telephones (Hotels)

Mr. Fowler: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many telephones have been installed in hotels over the last 12 months in Great Britain.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): The Post Office tells me that this information is not available.

Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the different methods by which hotels charge costs for telephone calls? Does he realise that in calculating its charge at least one hotel simply doubles the amount? Thus, a call costing the hotel £1 is charged at £2. Is this not an unsatisfactory arrangement? Should not hotels be required to make public their pricing policy?

Sir J. Eden: I am aware that hotels charge over and above the normal rates to cover certain overheads and other

expenses that are incurred in making these facilities available. If my hon. Friend has a particular instance in mind, he might think of taking it up with the Regional Tourist Board or with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a further statement on details of the reductions in investment he has to announce following the Chancellor's statement of public expenditure retrenchment.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement indicating in detail what projects will be affected as a result of the Government decision to make a cut of £30 million in the Post Office investment programme.

Mr. Roger Whit: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Post Office on projected savings in capital expenditure in 1974–75.

Sir J. Eden: I would refer hon. Members to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on 11th and 18th June.—[Vol. 857, c. 231.]

Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this blanket type of cut is unsatisfactory from the point of view of planning in the Post Office? Will he tell us what possible use this will be to the British economy? Further, will its harmful effects be found mostly in increasing the waiting lists or not improving the standard of service?

Sir J. Eden: The cut should be seen as part of the total amount of cuts in public expenditure. It is the total amount that has the impact on the management of the economy, not just the telecommunications and postal services.
The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the amount of the cut in this particular sector. It is £30 million out of a £662 million programme, which is 4·5 per cent. The bulk of it will fall on the telecommunications side and, of necessity, on the short lead time operations which will have a direct impact on subscriber operations. Therefore, the


impact is more likely to be felt at the customer end of the line than elsewhere.

Mr. White: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that any such reductions in investment will not affect telecommunications between London and North Kent, where the service is already inadequate and frustrating?

Sir J. Eden: The main point to be reassured about is that the announced reduction in public expenditure will not affect the programme of modernisation that I announced on 18th April, but some plans for improving the telephone service will inevitably have to be deferred.

Mr. Ewing: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the postal side of posts and telecommunications? Is it correct that the decision has been taken to cut back on postal mechanisation? If so, how can the industry plan its long-term future if the future is to be put in jeopardy? Is he aware that the postal service is working under severe pressure and is in grave danger of complete collapse in view of the way that the Government are toying about with it?

Sir J. Eden: There will be some impact on the postal mechanisation programme, but this will be largely a matter of spreading forward the time for the introduction of the new installations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions have been taking place between the Post Office and the union on this issue. I have no doubt that the union is equally anxious to ensure the maximum degree of efficiency in the postal delivery service. Obviously this presupposes a growing extent of the introduction of mechanisation.

Mr. Tom King: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the capital expenditure programme of the Post Office was on schedule anyway? Are these changes in expenditure more in the nature of budgeting revisions than actual cuts?

Sir J. Eden: Mechanisation has been deferred marginally because of the discussions that are still taking place between the Post Office and the Union of Post Office Workers. It is important to recognise that though the programme is spread forward over a large number of years the deferment in the earlier period can be fully absorbed within the context of the total programme.

Mr. McCrindle: Has not the time come for a truly radical reappraisal of capital investment by the Post Office? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at a time when further increases in postage are being predicted, the time has arrived for the Post Office to install central points in urban and suburban areas where people can pick up their own letters, thereby allowing our scarce numbers of postmen to be allocated to rural areas where this is not possible?

Sir J. Eden: That is probably the sort of point that could be taken into consideration by the Post Office Users National Council as a result of the references both by the Post Office Board and myself on behalf of the Government.

Shared Telephones

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many people were sharing telephones at the latest available date; and how many of them have expressed a wish to have separate instruments.

Sir J. Eden: At 31st March last just over 2 million subscribers had shared telephone service. The Post Office does not keep separate statistics of those who request exclusive service.

Mr. Wainwright: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if the Post Office wants to create an efficient telephone service throughout the country it has not only to remove from the waiting list those who are now on it, but must also provide those who wish it with a telephone of their own. Who is holding up the provision of a greater number of telephones? Is it the Government, by refusing to grant money for investment, or is it the supplier, who is failing to meet orders from the Post Office?

Sir J. Eden: It is neither. It is the fact that it takes time to match the availability of new exchange equipment for subscribers' lines to the enormous growth in demand. The Post Office shares the objectives to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It has plans for the progressive reduction of the shared service in the coming years, and eventually for its virtual elimination, but let no one kid himself that this can be done overnight.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shared service,


introduced as a result of the war, should have a firm phasing-out date and that we ought not to accept the rather glib assurances given to him—not by him—by the Post Office, which it has given to successive holders of my right hon. Friend's office and previous office?

Sir J. Eden: As my hon. Friend will readily accept, were it not for the shared service scheme some of those who apply for a telephone service would not be able to have it. Many people are willing to accept the shared service in order to get some service at this stage. I emphasise that the Post Office is determined to press ahead, in conjunction with the supplying industry, as fast as it can to eliminate the need for this temporary situation.

Mr. John Grant: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm reports that have appeared today that, following the announcement about postal charges going up, telecommunications charges are to go up as well, with clearly a further appalling impact on the retail price index? What effect does the right hon. Gentleman expect that to have on the demand for telephones?

Sir J. Eden: I am not in a position to comment on that. I have no firm proposition before me, and I am not aware that the Post Office has made any application on this matter to the Price Commission.

Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many elderly subscribers can just afford to have a telephone if they have a shared line and would find it extremely difficult suddenly to be told that they could no longer have a shared line? Will my right hon. Friend consider that, with a view to helping these elderly people?

Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend has touched on a particular aspect of the problem, and it is obviously the case that where people use the line only intermittently they would be prepared to share that facility with others. The fact remains, however, that the Post Office does not like that and wants to get to the point at which there is a universal exclusive service, and its investment plans are based upon that idea.

Mr. Kelley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office ought to have the information which he says it does not have because, before shared lines are installed, it asks people whether they are prepared to share the service, or informs them that they must share the line with someone else? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the inconvenience of having a shared line? My line was shared until Friday last. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) for putting down this Question, because apparently it has had some effect on the engineering department. My line became exclusive last Friday, but it is a great inconvenience——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Member is providing interesting information but is not asking a question.

Mr. Kelley: I am merely suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this information ought to be collated by the Post Office in order to find out the kind of objections that there are to sharing a line. It is a considerable inconvenience to subscribers.

Sir J. Eden: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman no longer has to share his line with anybody else but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, I suspect that there are one or two people who benefit from the reduction in cost to them of doing this. However, the fact remains that the Post Office is pressing ahead to try to bring this business of a shared line to an end.

Television Reception (Coventry)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether, in view of the inadequate reception of television signals in the Allesley and Holbrook areas of Coventry, he will take urgent steps to establish a relay station, appropriately sited, for its improvement.

Sir J. Eden: No. If the BBC makes any proposals I will consider them.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that curt and perfunctory reply will be resented by tens of thousands of Coventry residents, of all parties, who realise that the quality of their reception


is inferior to that in most parts of the country? Will the right hon. Gentleman mend his ways, come to Coventry and study the problem on the spot, and then endeavour to give some satisfactory service, at last, to those who are now so disadvantaged?

Sir J. Eden: In view of the many careful letters of explanation that I have exchanged with the hon. Gentleman I do not think that his observations are in any way justified. The hon. Gentleman knows that his constituents can readily help themselves in this matter either by improving their own aerial facilities or by turning to the possibility of introducing communal aerials.

Mr. Marten: In view of the number of complaints about inadequate reception, particularly in mountainous areas, valleys, and so on, may I ask whether the Government have given up all plans for putting up a geostationary satellite for relaying television programmes?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir, not altogether. This has not been rejected, but it is not a realistic proposition now. Economic factors do not seem to justify the introduction of this now in terms of the United Kingdom alone, but it is something that has by no means been excluded.

Licence Evasion

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now state the sum in default by broadcast licence evasion during the financial year to 31st March 1973; what sum he expects to recover by all revised methods now in force; and what further steps he has in mind.

Sir J. Eden: About £5 million in 1972–73, compared with over £7 million the previous year. I hope that the present methods of combating evasion, coupled with increasing computer assistance with licence records, will achieve a substantial further reduction this year.

Sir G. Nabarro: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his undoubted progress in this field, but I warn him that it is still not good enough. Does my right hon. Friend know that there are about 300,000 people in this country who are still viewing their television programmes and receiving their broadcasts

free, gratis and for nothing at the expense of law-abiding citizens such as myself, who pay £14 a year for the privilege of looking in at a television set? Why cannot my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to minimise the number of defalcations in this field?

Sir J. Eden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the publicity which his Question will no doubt have given to the desirability of everybody meeting their obligations to pay a licence fee when they are in possession of a receiving set. I need no encouragement from my hon. Friend to redouble my efforts, but I am grateful to be reassured that I shall have his support in this matter.

Mr. Ewing: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to suggest that this is a straight licence evasion? May it not be a protest against those politicians who appear regularly on television?

Sir J. Eden: I have not recently seen the hon. Gentleman in a television programme, and I do not know when he last took part in one, but I am sure he will realise that as these figures become smaller so we get down to the hard core who are prepared to resist this even though they know that it is wrong to do so.

Transistorised Amplified Telephones

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will hold an interdepartmental inquiry into the categories of persons requiring transistorised amplified telephones other than those suffering from deafness and the extent of existing distribution of such telephones; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. Although the Post Office does not keep detailed records it estimates that the majority of amplifying hand sets are used by the hard of hearing. The remainder are used mainly in areas where the surrounding high noise level makes hearing difficult, for example, factories and airports.

Mr. Pavitt: What other steps can the right hon. Gentleman take—we know that he has sympathy in this matter—to persuade the Post Office not to seize on the excuse of a small number of not partially deaf people to charge deaf people an additional amount which


people with ordinary hearing do not have to pay? Why should this section of the disabled be the only section of disablement to pay an extra charge for deafness—a charge that is not paid by ordinary people?

Sir J. Eden: It is because of what have already tried to point out, namely, that other users can benefit from the introduction of the amplified sets. The hon. Member knows that local authorities and my right hon. Friend the Secretray of State for Social Services have substantial powers to help in particular cases of need. When the hon. Gentleman last raised this question, he implied that it was the last Labour Government who reduced the charge by 33⅓ per cent. In fact, it took place in July 1964, under the previous Conservative Government.

Telephone Calls (Metering)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many metered units of telephone calls were recorded by the Post Office in the last accounting year.

Sir J. Eden: The Post Office does not maintain national summaries of metered call units but it tells me that the number of such units in 1971–72 was of the order of 30,000 million.

Mrs. Knight: Can my right hon. Friend categorically deny a rumour that is current in the Birmingham area, that the meters used for recording calls go up only to 100,000 and then return to nil? Is he aware that many firms and industries in the West Midlands make many overseas calls and that therefore the meter should be going round very quickly? I have been informed that of two that have been checked, one goes around one and a half times in a 13-week period, thus losing the GPO about £4,000 a year and the other, with a much bigger rate of calls, loses about £56,000, plus extra for the Inland Revenue on VAT? Will he consider this matter in preference to allowing telephone charges to go up?

Sir J. Eden: There are problems such as my hon. Friend has described. The Post Office keeps a check on leases of any customers whose consumption rises to 6,000 units or more, and it is also at present conducting trials of a six-digit meter. It hopes to introduce a wider

system of interim readings as well—that is, given extra computer time—during next year.

Commercial Radio Legislation)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will introduce legislation to amend Sections 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Sound Broadcasting Act 1972, following details of the first contracts for commercial radio stations published by the IBA.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister agree that the published shareholdings of the first successful contractors for independent broadcasting show that there has not been one departure in either ownership or initiative from the established patterns of the Press and television conglomerates, which are already powerful over these areas? Will he tell the IBA now to abandon the principle of "to him that hath already shall be more given" and go back to the principles of competition to which the Conservative Party paid lip service in the last Election?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir, I do not think that such action would be justified by the earlier decisions that have so far been taken by the IBA. It has been very careful in its interpretation not only of the requirements of the Act but of the spirit in which it was passed.

Mr. Proudfoot: Will the Minister look again at the suggestion that the IBA should put these licences out for auction when they have references to the applicants, since then competition would take place?

Sir J. Eden: The IBA, as my hon. Friend knows, is empowered, by the terms of the legislation, to issue the licences to those whom it has selected. When the applicant has been chosen the undertakings that the applicant has made will be made known to the public. The way in which this has so far been done does not justify my taking any special action as my hon. Friend recommends.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that, on 22nd April, London Weekend Television invited its audience to participate in its "Golden Girls" competition by


way of coupon in the two London evening papers and that, not satisfied with the boost to sales that that gave, the Evening Standard on 23rd April in its sports edition did not even bother to carry the coupon that had been advertised on London Weekend Television the day before? Is it not wrong that the Press should be able to get away with such behaviour?

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member is clearly raising with me matters that fall within the responsibility of the IBA.

Giro

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to review the organisation of the Giro, in view of administrative changes currently under consideration affecting social security payments.

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir. I understand that the possible implications for Giro of the proposed tax credit scheme, which I assume my hon. Friend has in mind, are already being considered by the Post Office with the Departments concerned.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the Minister aware that the use of computers in the administration of social security is much more advanced in some other countries? Is the management of the Giro aware of the possibilities for extending the service which would be offered simply by the extension of family allowances to the first child, quite apart from the tax credit scheme? Is it not lamentably failing to rise to its opportunities here?

Sir J. Eden: I think that it possibly is, but my hon. Friend has already given evidence to the Select Committee and I know that this has already been considered by the Department of Health and Social Security. It will probably be sensible to wait until the Committee has reported and the House has had an opportunity to consider any recommendations that it may make.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has satisfied himself that the Giro is now making a positive contribution to the finances of the Post Office: and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the expiry of the one-year target period.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My right hon. Friend will agree that that period expires this weekend. The expiry date was set at 1st July. Since we were assured that the objective of achieving a positive contribution was to be achieved within one year of the increase in tariffs, can he assure us that, if this target has not been achieved, the reprieve granted to the Giro last year will be terminated, as it was made a firm precondition for this reprieve by his predecessor?

Sir J. Eden: I reiterate that I think that it would be more sensible to wait until I have fully considered the final outcome of the year's operations and can report to Parliament.

Mr. Heffer: Would the Minister not allow himself to be flustered by the noises from his hon. Friends about the Giro? Is he aware that Giro gives employment to many workers in the Merseyside area, which has suffered considerably from actions of this Government over the past three years? Will he therefore be careful in following the advice of the backwoodsmen on his own back benches?

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member is making an absolute nonsense of his own case. He would far better help his own constituents if he kept quiet on the subject.

Mr. Heffer: What do you mean by that?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grant. Question No. 13.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not usually ask for the protection of the Chair, because I do not need it, but if the Minister wants to come outside and explain what he meant by that last answer, we can discuss the matter and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, that sort of invitation is not a matter for the Chair.

Television Advertising

Mr. John Grant: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what


consultations he has held with the Independent Broadcasting Authority concerning his powers in relation to advertising on television.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what consultations he has held with the Independent Broadcasting Authority concerning his powers in relation to advertising on television.

Sir J. Eden: None concerning my powers, but the authority had consultations with me last year in accordance with Section 7(5) of the Television Act.

Mr. Grant: Yes, but the Minister will be aware that in the last few days some very serious allegations about the abuse of advertising time by programme companies have been made and seem to have been substantiated in the Sunday Times this week, in a report concerning profits of thousands of pounds, which may have been made illicitly. Although one is aware of his responsibilities, is the Minister satisfied that in this respect the IBA is carrying out adequately its statutory duties under the Television Act' Will he have urgent talks with the IBA about this matter? In doing so, will he press it to make regularly available the relevant data in this matter, so that this misunderstanding, if it is a misunderstanding, cannot arise in future?

Sir J. Eden: I saw the Press reports last week, of course. The IBA is urgently looking into the allegations made, but it is up to it to administer Schedule 2(3) of the Television Act 1964, according to the rules that it has drawn up under the schedule. For my part, I am concerned to see that the IBA discharges its obligation, but the matter is one for the authority in the first instance.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister particularly draw the attention of the IBA to the specific allegation about Anglia Television, that on 29th April 1972, between 10 and 11 p.m., Anglia Television transmitted over 12 minutes of advertising, which is 80 per cent. more than the amount allowed in the Television Act? Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that Anglia Television is now bidding for a radio licence in its own area? Will he tell the IBA to investigate this matter very sharply indeed?

Sir J. Eden: It would be improper to pick out for separate comment an isolated instance. The hon. Gentleman will generally be aware of the desire to avoid unnatural breaks in certain programmes, for example, sporting events, which may result in the compression of advertising time within an hour separate from those programmes. But this is a matter which falls entirely within the policing responsibilities of the IBA.

Mr. Golding: If the IBA fails to fulfil its obligations, which was in some respects indicated last year by the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the IBA, will the Minister do something about the IBA? It is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory to read detailed accounts of the way in which the IBA has failed to fulfil its obligation.

Sir J. Eden: It is open to anyone to make a generalised comment. But I am anxious to ensure that the IBA carries out its statutory responsibility. Where there is a generalised Press commentary of this kind, it is well that I await a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

European Patent Conference

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what modifications of the draft European Patent Convention he intends to seek at the Munich Conference in September.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The draft European Patent Convention will be of advantage to the British inventor by enabling him to protect his invention both throughout the EEC and in other European countries by a single application. Consideration of the latest draft of the convention has not yet been completed, but at present I do not see the need for seeking more than minor technical or drafting amendments.

Mr. Powell: As the draft was drawn up without prime attention to the interests and needs of British inventors and patent holders, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that those interests will be the overriding consideration of this country's representatives at the conference?

Sir G. Howe: The interests of those concerned with patents in this country involve many different matters. One of them is the nature of the system and location of the offices whereby the system is operated. The other is the nature of the rights conferred by a European patent. The negotiations leading to this convention have taken place among 21 countries. They enable a patent which is likely to be effected throughout that number of countries to be effective. That is one of the interests that British people concerned and patent holders are required to bear in mind, along with others.

Mr. English: Will the staff of the proposed new office conform linguistically to the proportion of patent applications sent to it?

Sir G. Howe: The linguistic balance of the staff has not been finally settled because the convention itself has not been finally settled; nor can we foresee the precise linguistic pattern of applications likely to be made. The probability is that English will be playing a substantial part in that.

Shipbuilding (Booz-Allen Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what observations on the Booz-Allen Report he has now received from representatives of the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with leaders of the shipbuilding industry concerning the Booz-Allen Report; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): A number of observations on the Booz-Allen Report have now been received. A meeting has already been held with the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association and meetings, as necessary, with other interested parties will follow prior to the formulation of our long-term policy.

Mr. Willey: Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have now received the observations of both sides of the industry, will the Minister do his utmost to get a speedy Government decision? The present favourable circumstances will not

obtain for ever, and it is very important to ensure that shipbuilders now go all out for orders on the world market. Does the hon. Gentleman have any information about the progress in the talks between Austin Pickersgill and Doxford?

Mr. Grant: The latter point is still under consideration in my Department. It is necessary to come to a conclusion as soon as possible. That we shall do. We gave a deadline of 15th June for the observations, and the CSEU asked for an extension of time. We have given that extension and we have only just received its observations.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Although there are certainly problems that need to be resolved in the shipyards, does not my hon. Friend agree that the general impression of the industry is that it appears that the order book is as full as it has been at any time since the war and that there are very few yards which can now give quotations for 1975 or the early part of 1976?

Mr. Grant: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The present order book position is very healthy, and more healthy than for very many years.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman not be unduly complacent but recognise that the industry needs massive capital investment if it is to maintain its place in the world and, in particular, to ensure employment prospects in a growth industry which have the utmost impact on regional economic problems?

Mr. Grant: Yes, indeed, and it is considerations such as those which we shall take carefully into consideration in formulating long-term policy.

Mr. Marten: I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Douglas) about not being complacent. Would not my hon. Friend agree that we are, perhaps, at the end of a cycle in which other yards in the rest of the world are very full and that we should not be complacent?

Mr. Grant: I never sought to give any impression that we were complacent. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) rightly said that the order book situation was more healthy than it has been for a number of years. We can be pleased


about this, without being in any way complacent and taking into account the needs for investment in regard to long-term policy.

Mr. Benn: In view of the records of Governments from both sides of the House in putting public money into this industry, as it is now constructed, without achieving the capital investment required to compete with the Japanese and other foreign shipbuilders, will the Government think carefully about alternative ways of expanding investment, namely, an extension of public ownership?

Mr. Grant: The latter suggestion is probably one of the least attractive to the public or the industry. We are certainly taking into consideration the long-term needs. We hope to avoid the errors that have been made in the past, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges.

Cheque Purchases (Security Photographs)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set up an inquiry into the practice of companies requesting customers paying goods by cheque to have their photograph taken for purposes of security; and if he will make a statement.

Sir G. Howe: I am not persuaded that there is any case for an inquiry into this practice which I understand to be in use only in the case of customers who have no acceptable means of identification.

Mr. Ewing: That is not exactly the position. Will the Minister regard this as a very serious matter? Does it not concern the Minister that in this country there are companies holding thousands of photographs of people, with their names and addresses with them? Does not the Minister regard this as a gross intrusion into the personal liberty of those citizens, and will he set up the inquiry requested in the Question?

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman should keep this matter in perspective. It was not regarded as requiring investigation by the Younger Committee which investigated the law and practice in relation to privacy.
If a customer objects to the practice of being photographed when he is presenting a cheque, in the way described by the hon. Gentleman, he has other alternatives. He can carry means of identification, pay by cash, contact his bank, or wait for his cheque to be cleared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Retail premises presented with cheques by customers who have no other means of identification have to resort to some means of serving their customers' convenience. One of those methods is that described by the hon. Gentleman, and it is a method that takes place with the knowledge and consent of the customer.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Aircraft Noise

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much weighting is given to flight frequencies, and to the peak amount of noise in any one flight, respectively, in compiling the Noise and Number index.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): The weightings in the formula are based on the findings of the Final Report of the Wilson Committee on the Problem of noise published in July 1963 (Cmnd. 2056). The NNI scale was re-examined by the Research Sub-Committee of the Noise Advisory Council in 1972. That committee did not recommend any modification of the formula, which we still consider the best available measure of annoyance caused by aircraft noise.

Mr. Jessel: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this index gives a greater weight to changes in the volume of peak noise for any given place than to the number of aircraft passing by? Would he not also agree that the sheer number of flights, which at Heathrow now amounts to about 600 per day, is becoming increasingly annoying? Ought not the index to he modified now to reflect all this?

Mr. Onslow: I recognise that many people regard frequency as the major irritant but I hope my hon. Friend will accept that, if we were to revise the


system, we should have to have some thorough resurveying of the situation. Statistics apart, the real point is that there are a great many residents near Heathrow and Gatwick who have been encouraged to expect relief from aircraft noise with the construction of the third airport and much of their tolerance of noise has therefore diminished. This is therefore a powerful reason for going ahead with the Government's intentions.

Mr. Bishop: Concern about the frequency of aircraft is an important aspect of noise considerations, and the infrequency of supersonic flights is a possible answer to critics of Concorde and that method of flying. This question arises, as do many others, from the concern about lack of Government involvement in research and development on noise. Will the Minister therefore do more to encourage manufacturers to produce quieter engines as a way out of the dilemma?

Mr. Onslow: I am not sure that I follow all the tortuous derivations of the hon. Member's question, but if the manufacturers think there is a commercial market for noise suppression kits perhaps they might set the pace in producing them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Government Offices (Dispersal)

Mr. Horam: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further discussions the Government propose to have with the North of England Development Council about the Hardman Report on the dispersal of civil servants.

Mr. Radice: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he had with bodies in the Northern Region, including the North of England Development Council, about the Hardman Report on the dispersal of civil servants.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I saw a delegation from this council before the report was published. I sent the council a copy of the report on the day of publication. If it wishes to discuss the report with me, I shall welcome it, but I have not yet received a request for this.

Mr. Horam: Dispersal to Milton Keynes and Southend is not dispersal at all, because it still leaves the majority of civil servants in the South-East. The Government should be setting a different trend. In the Northern Region only 4·8 per cent. of all jobs are in the clerical and administrative class—indisputably the lowest percentage of any English region—compared with 11·1 per cent. in the London area. Will the Minister keep this sort of thing in mind when the Government consider the Hardman Report?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I can assure the hon. Member that I shall. He is not quite accurate, however. Seven out of 10 civil servants work and live outside London and the South-East. I can assure him that the Hardman Report is a consultative document, that my door is open, and that I am willing to receive representations from any region and any area.

Mr. Radice: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in receiving representations and deputations, but may I remind him that the Hardman Report is only the latest in a series of disappointments about the dispersal of civil servants? Is he aware, for example, that the Northern Region lost 2,000 jobs, which were promised to Washington new town but went to the South-East?

Mr. Baker: I know that our decision not to proceed with the location of the PAYE centre at Washington caused disappointment in the area, but if the House agrees to the establishment of the tax credit system it is our intention to establish the computer centre for it at Washington. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Member that the city that has most civil servants outside London is Newcastle.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions have taken place, and if any further are intended, between the Government and the South-West Regional Planning Council and Cornwall County Council following receipt of the Hardman Report on the possibility of civil servants being dispersed to the South-West Development area.

Mr. Keneth Baker: Neither of these bodies has been in discussion with the Government but I am very willing to see them if they wish.

Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that the South-West Development Area is the only development area that will not receive any Government offices under the recommendations of the Hardman Report? Is he also aware that there is one self-contained unit of modest dimensions, namely, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which would be very well suited to meet the needs of a small town such as Bodmin or Liskeard within the South-West in the attempts of those towns to improve the job quality opportunities for the area?

Mr. Baker: I am aware of the point raised by my hon. Friend and I shall be pleased to receive representations. One of the reasons for Sir Henry Hardman's recommendation that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board should go to Plymouth rather than farther afield is that it should remain close to its parent Department—the Home Office—which he recommended should in part go to Plymouth. However, I am ready to receive representations from any part of the South-West Development Area.

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what recent discussions he has had on the Hardman Report.

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations the Government have had from Scotland since the publication of the Hardman Report.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what action he proposes over the Hardman Report; and, in particular, if he will now place the whole of the oil office in Scotland.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have so far received only one request for a discussion from a town in England and none from Scotland. I am of course ready to consider any that are made.
The location of offices dealing with oil is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but as already announced the offshore supplies office will be based in London while the Scottish petroleum office will be in Glasgow.

Mr. Taylor: Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament have asked for an

urgent meeting with the Prime Minister because there is considerable resentment in Scotland that, according to the report, only 1,200 of the 30,000 jobs are suitable for Scotland. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an absolute assurance that before a final recommendation is made on policy on the report my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be directly involved in the discussions?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I can. All Ministers will be involved, because the arrangements of their Departments will be affected and it would make a mockery of consultation if such involvement did not take place. It is the Government's intention to receive representations and to hear views expressed from Scotland generally, and I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he has asked.

Mr. Millan: Apart from the insensitivity of the report from the point of view of regional policy and the dismissal of Scotland and Wales as irrelevancies, which has caused great offence in Scotland, is the Minister aware that one of the most unsatisfactory features of the report is the section dealing with travel, where the difficulties of travel between Glasgow and London are grossly exaggerated? Will he look at that matter again before final decisions are made?

Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Member that I shall. As for his views about Sir Henry Hardman's use of the word "irrelevant", I suggest that the hon. Member reads it in the context in which it was written. As for travel, Sir Henry was looking at policy units and not executive blocks of work, and was concerned not so much with distance as with the frequency of communication between the bodies that are dispersed and the centre. Even after allowing for telecommunications and improved communications in other respects, about 30 per cent. of all communications at policy level in the Civil Service have to be face to face, and that is the nub of the problem.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether, in view of the absence of recommendations in the Hardman Report concerning dispersal of civil servants to non-urban areas, he will consider sites in Scotland for smaller


Government offices leaving London in future.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is, I confess, difficult to contemplate dispersal to non-urban areas. Under the Government's existing dispersal and new office policies, however, the assisted areas, including Scotland, are always carefully considered when decisions on locating Government work are taken. These policies will continue.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister expand a little on that answer? Why is it difficult to consider non-urban centres when one of the problems we face today is the overcrowding of our cities? Surely this was an opportunity to move at least some of the smaller Government Departments into the small towns of this country?

Mr. Baker: In previous dispersal exercises those groups which engaged in self-contained executive work have gone and that sort of work can be dispersed away from communications centres. But it is difficult to disperse policy work to an area which is not a good communications centre. The hon. Member is concerned about research bodies. The Agricultural Research Council, for example, was recommended for Manchester because the main dispersal of that Department was to Manchester. The child has followed the parent in this matter.

Mr. Sheldon: Does the Minister recall that the Hardman Committee said that the report was a basis for discussion? I hope that it is in that light that the Minister will be considering many of its statements. In particular, is he not aware that whereas the report showed the opportunities for improvements in rail travel and the effect these would have on dispersal, it did not go into nearly enough detail about improvements in air travel, which is a problem that affects Scotland particularly. No forecast was made of such improvements into the 1980s. Will the Minister remedy what appears to be a defect here?

Mr. Baker: I am only too pleased to hear representations on this score. One of the attractions of Teesside is the good air communications which exist, but it is also true that it is possible to fly to Glasgow in an hour. It is not, however, a question of distance but the frequency with which the civil servants have to

make the journey. I am only too pleased to listen to representations. I shall receive representations from the staff side and from the Civil Service unions.

Mr. Proudfoot: My hon. Friend almost makes it sound as though civil servants had not discovered modern communications by telephone, and other modern methods. May I ask him, in any discussions with the civil servants, to represent London and the South-East as being an environmental disaster area and to say that the quality of life is so much better in the regions that people should be bursting to come to us?

Mr. Baker: I shall welcome representations from my hon. Friend. Perhaps he should speak to some of the civil service unions about the matter. One of the encouraging things about Hardman is that where we have dispersed over the past 10 years we have had a very successful record. On the whole, those civil servants who have gone to the regions have not regretted it.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group has discussed the Hardman Report and has come to the conclusion that if it is fully implemented it will be a real body blow to the people of Scotland? Is he aware that a representation is en route to him that we should have a meeting with him as soon as possible to put our case? I should like an assurance from him that no final decision will be taken by the Cabinet without the strong representation of the Secretary of State for Scotland being heard on the matter.

Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are prepared to listen to all representations. I am glad to know that representation is coming from his own area in Glasgow. Over 20 per cent. of all posts dispersed from London since 1963 have gone to Scotland, and the plum of the 1963 dispersal—the Post Office Savings Bank—went to Cowglen.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to announce the Government's decision on implementing the recommendations of the Hardman Report.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Government expect to announce decisions by the end


of the year, after considering the complex questions raised by the report in the light of such arguments and views as are put to them.

Sir A. Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that North Wales is the Cinderella of the regions, remembered by successive Governments only when there is something unpleasant to be dished out, like the closing down of steelworks, and that we badly need our fair share of goodies in the form of roads and new clerical jobs?

Mr. Baker: I am very much aware of what my hon. Friend says. He has been to see me with a delegation from his local authorities. The amount of dispersal to Wales is a high proportion of the whole. I appreciate that it is to South Wales, and that the first recommendation of Hardman is that about 5,500 posts should go to South Wales. If my hon. Friend wishes to see me again with the various interests of North Wales, I shall be only too pleased to see him and hear his representations.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) about dispersal to non-urban areas will not be welcomed in Scotland generally? Further, is he aware that such dispersal displays a remarkable lack of imagination on behalf of the Government? Is he aware that the location of the Superannuation Office of the Atomic Energy Authority in the small burgh of Thurso happened a number of years ago and has been most successful? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that as a model for future dispersal?

Mr. Baker: I re-emphasise that during the last dispersal exercise Scotland generally received some 20 per cent. of the dispersal. I am only too pleased to receive representations. There are a great deal of closely argued factors in Hardman. If any hon. Member can persuade me that we should go beyond the Glasgow conurbations I shall be only too pleased to listen.

Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that some hon. Members are having extreme difficulty warding off criticism about the Hardman Report? Will he and his Ministry examine the communications use and recommendations in the Report and present the Government's

view about communications in particular to the House?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has stressed an important point. Hardman has been balancing, on the one hand, the gain to the regions, particularly by helping to counter the regional imbalance in the lack of clerical work for women, against less communication. He makes clear that he has made a personal judgment. This is very much a matter for Ministers to decide. We have said that we want to listen to representations. I must emphasise that my door is open and that I am willing to receive delegations from any area or from any hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Members' Interests

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in the inter-party talks concerning the establishment of a compulsory public register of Members' outside financial interests.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The hon. Member will appreciate that the discussions that are going forward on these matters are confidential. I will ensure that the House is informed of the outcome as soon as possible.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly whether the Government are serious about the matter or whether they are just engaging in a sham exercise that no one need take seriously? If the latter is the case, we had better understand it now. Is not there increasing evidence, almost day by day, of the desperate urgency of having such a register, so that the public may be assured that the vast majority of Members are not corrupt, that they have not got outside financial interests which corrupt them, but that there are some who have, and they should be exposed?

Mr. Prior: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government are taking the matter extremely seriously and wish, as does the hon. Gentleman, to protect the vast majority of Members from the innuendos that are sometimes cast upon them. But, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, it


is a complicated and difficult matter. The negotiations are protracted, but I hope that very soon they can be brought to a successful conclusion, because I am certain that it is in the interests of the House that action should be taken in the near future.

Mileage Allowance

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to increase the one shilling per mile allowance for motor cars for Members of the House of Commons having regard to additional costs, caused by inflation since December 1971, including value added tax; whether he has now studied the revised Royal Automobile Club recommended mileage rates, revealing considerable increases in 1971–72; and whether he will ask the Services Committee to re-examine these matters.

Mr. Prior: I have noted the RAC recommendations on mileage allowances. So far as the rate of the Members' allowance is concerned, it is already within the terms of reference of the Committee to consider this matter.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the RAC's latest figures reveal a mileage allowance which is about 40 per cent higher than the present Members' allowance, or a mileage allowance at the rate of approximately 7p per mile? Having regard to the fact that the matter should now be reviewed, as it was last reviewed in December 1970, will not my right hon. Friend consent to other right hon. and hon. Members and myself appearing before the Services Committee in order to bring it up to date in the matter so that it may make further representations to the House?

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend will realise that there are difficulties. It is extremely difficult to isolate the mileage allowance from other Members' allowances. It would clearly raise difficult issues at present. I do not dispute the RAC figures. The allowance we had in 1970 was slightly more generous than that for civil servants, and although it is now slightly behind I do not think that we are far out. If hon. Members feel that the 5p per mile is not enough, they are entitled to claim the additional cost of running their cars against tax as a tax allowance. To that

extent, the situation is certainly by no means desperate, but if it is raised by members of the Services Committee, we shall consider it.

Mr. C. Pannell: The Lord President has just spoken about other allowances. I should imagine that other allowances were matters for the Boyle Committee. I do not know of any others that fall under the Services Committee except the motor car allowance. Does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind to refer to the Boyle Committee any of the inequities in the present system, such as allowances for London Members, which I think are absolutely unjust?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. It has been the Government's view that the Boyle Committee would look at these matters once in the lifetime of a Parliament, and that we should stick to that procedure. Although the car allowances are not strictly in the same category, it would be difficult for outsiders to understand why we alter the car allowances more often than we consider other allowances.

Parliamentary Papers

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Lord President of the Council if, in the light of the inefficiencies and delays now apparent in the Parliamentary Printing Office, he will consider making alternative arrangements.

Mr. Prior: I very much regret the difficulties which hon. Members are experiencing as a result of the industrial dispute at St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press. Emergency arrangements are now in hand which will provide Parliament with essential working papers.

Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have now had no proper or reliable printing since 12th June, nearly a fortnight ago, and that that constitutes a great inconvenience? Has the Services Committee considered the matter? Will my right hon. Friend tell us the nature of the dispute, what efforts are being made to end it, and what hope there is of ending it? If I may say so with courtesy, could the Government take the matter a little more seriously?

Mr. Prior: I can promise my hon. Friend that there is no question of not taking it seriously. We certainly do take the matter seriously. What I have been


endeavouring to do, with the co-operation of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department, is to see that all essential papers are provided. Following my hon. Friend's statement last Thursday and the comments of right hon. and hon. Members, we have tried to bring about some improvement, particularly over the whole question of HANSARD, which I think will be welcomed by hon. Members. The dispute is a straightforward pay dispute. Negotiations are still going on. I can add nothing further to what my hon. Friend said on Thursday.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: We are not getting all essential papers. Has my hon. Friend heard of the difficulty experienced by the Committee of the whole House on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill, in that what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading was not available to the Committee in any form? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that by Report a complete record of all the proceedings on this important constitutional Bill is available?

Mr. Prior: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the Committee stage reports will be available before the Report stage is taken in the House. They will have to be produced in typed form, but they will certainly be available. I am trying to ensure that the same procedure is carried out where other Bills are in Committee now and a Report stage is coming along, so that those reports are available in good time as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Nature Conservancy Council Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Rippon.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting, if the Question on the first Motion in the name of Mr. James Prior relating to a new Parliamentary building be agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the Question on the second such Motion; and proceedings on that Question may be disposed of, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

MOTOR INDUSTRY

3.32 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the growing conflict in the motor industry, particularly at Chrysler plants; and urges the Government to set up a full and independent inquiry into labour relations throughout that industry.
I must admit that I am not too well disposed at the moment towards the motor industry. My car blew up on the M1 and had it not been for a kindly lorry driver I could not have arrived here in time for the House to have had a debate. However, having made it on time, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the debate, which comes at a time when we have seen some of the most bitter conflict in the motor industry during the past quarter of a century. There is every indication that the position will get worse.
Perhaps I should declare my interest. I represent thousands of people who are dependent upon the car industry. As the now-famous Chrysler car plant at Ryton on Dunsmore is in my constituency, I shall naturally wish to say a few helpful words about the dispute at that plant. It would be simple and I admit it is tempting to seek to beat the day lights out of management not only at the Chrysler plant but throughout industry. However, I do not believe that would be a particularly productive exercise.
My experience of the industry leads me to the conclusion that over many years there have been problems on both sides. It has never been my case, or the case of shop stewards and full-time union officials, that on all occasions have the people whom I represent been 100 per cent. pure-hearted. There have been mistakes and there have been occasions on which the car workers have played it extremely hard. There have been incidents which I found difficult to justify, but I believe that such things are inevitable. The motor industry as we know it is still a recent development. It is a volatile, difficult and emotional industry which is operated on tight schedules—so many cars per hour come what may; quantity rather than quality. It is, by any standards, an explosive situation.
I ask the House to consider a simple question. Why is it that car workers,


who are among the best-paid men in the land, should be involved in so many disputes which often land themselves and their families in dire financial difficulties? There has been a tendency to create the image of the greedy, idle, shoddy and over-paid car worker, who is ready to strike with the least possible cause. Car workers are presented as bloody-minded individuals helped along by bone-headed, militant shop stewards. That is all good Daily Telegraph stuff. That is an argument and a description which I am not prepared to accept. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That does not alter the fact that it would be foolish to pretend otherwise than that we have had our fair share of industrial trouble. In 1969, 1,632,000 days were lost. In 1970, 1,105,000 days were lost. In 1971, 3,100,000 days were lost and in 1972 the days lost were 1,363,000. It has been estimated that in 1972 the manufacturers lost approximately 250,000 vehicles. That is about one-eighth of their production. That again, by any standards, is not a happy record.
We are entitled to ask why. Perhaps the saddest comment came from a Ford worker who was quoted in the recent book by How Benyon. He said:
It's strange this place. It's got no really good points. It's just convenient. It's got no interest. You couldn't take the job home. There's nothing to take. You just forget it. It's different for them in the office. They're part of Fords. We're not—we're numbers.
Benyon wrote:
To stand there and look at the endless, perpetual tedium of it all is to be threatened by the overwhelming insanity of it—the sheer audacious madness of a system based upon men like those wishing their lives away.
That is what we should be considering. The situation has its funny side. They tell a very old story in the Halewood plant of the man who left the track to work in a sweet factory. His job was to sort the red candy from the blue. After a month he handed in his notice. The boss asked him why he had done so. The man replied:
Because I couldn't stand taking all those decisions.
That is the mentality of the car track. Men have been turned into robots. Skill has been sacrificed for mass production. I accept that if the man working in the

sweet factory had been a Liverpudlian he would have come up with a better crack. The fact is that the men have no part in management or decision-making. Any interest in the job has been destroyed by the sheer monotony of the track. Can anyone wonder why we have trouble?
The position was summed up by Mr. George Cattell, the former managing director of Chrysler. In a recent letter to The Times he wrote:
Men were engaged on repetitive operations with a 1·6 minute cycle for eight hours a day, five days a week, with little interest in what they were doing and little prospect of change. I know from experience that the very monotony gave rise to unreasonable and uncooperative attitudes.
We can also take opinions from the factory floor. One of the shop stewards at Ryton was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
Young lads are brought in, given a welding gun and told to get on with it. A few steps, a few stabs with the gun … a few steps, a few stabs with the gun … all day long. The line mustn't stop, whatever happens.
Let us consider a quotation from a work study document produced for British Leylands Triumph plant at Coventry, which says:
Both hands should not be idle at rest periods … hands should work in curves, not in sharp movements … hands should be removed from all work which could be done by other parts of the body.
If anyone can tell me what that is supposed to mean, I would be grateful. We have, on the one hand, the boredom, the dirt, the noise and the monotony. On the other hand, we have the genuine fears of men working in an industry which has been subjected to more booms and slumps than any other industry in Britain. One just does not build good industrial relations out of uncertainties, and these fears are well founded.
The men see the growth of multinational companies answerable to no one. They believe that they can be at any time the victims of centralisations and mergers. Perhaps most important of all, they dread getting old on a car track. It was for the later reason that Ford workers recently meeting in Cologne demanded a guarantee that wages from the age of 50 until retirement should not be reduced.
What is frightening these men—and it is a major factor in the psychology of the car track—is that if one substitutes


stamina for skill, which is what is done, then the man in his late forties and fifties will have to be taken off the line because he can no longer keep up with the young men and the only alternative for him is lower-paid employment. There are many other problems, such as change from piece work to day work, frequent arguments about status, desire to maintain the differential, the demands between factories for parity, and so on.
On top of all that, we have the problem of management. I must say something here. The Americans, with their strange methods, have done little to produce industrial peace. They are accustomed to long, expensive, disastrous disputes, and there seems to be evidence to suggest that they would be happy with a similar set-up here. There is all too often no consultation, no liaison, no cooperation—absolutely nothing between management and workers. Top management does not know what is going on; middle and lower management is frequently ill-trained, ill-equipped and occasionally ill-intentioned. I know car bosses who operate with a secrecy that would make a group of Trappist monks by comparison wonder where the leaks were coming from.
I threatened to deal with the Ryton dispute and I shall do so, despite the fact that it was settled on Saturday. I believe that it has been a classic of its kind and an object lesson in how to allow a minor matter—which was all it was, for it was really a non-starter from the beginning—to escalate into open and bitter conflict.
The facts are well known. The company claimed that hundreds of men were deliberately turning out shoddy work and it stopped 90 minutes' pay. Mr. Gilbert Hunt, the managing director at the time and now elevated to the chairmanship—that is the result of success—attacked his work people and issued a variety of threats. I want to say this about him, although one or two of my colleagues may not agree with me. I have known Gilbert Hunt a long time and I do not believe that he is a reactionary employer. I think that it is right that I should say that that is the position as I see it.
But I must say that Mr. Hunt approached this problem with all the tact and delicacy that one would expect

to find in a herd of over-sexed bull elephants. He went in fighting and it is little wonder that in the last two weeks he has become known as "Sheriff Hunt of Dodge City." That is the position now at Ryton. It is in this sort of atmosphere that the men have gone back.
It was an odd allegation to make. Can one imagine it? Everyone in that shop apparently on one specific day and at the same time on that specific day was overcome by a burning desire to sabotage his own company. It not that strange? It would be a miracle if it happened. Mr. Hunt was not selective. All stood equally condemned.
The unions for their part claimed that, following a dispute at Linwood, parts were in short supply, that the management ordered defective components to be sent down the track to keep cars coming off, and that this was why shoddy cars were emerging. My inquiries have led me to believe that the unions were right. It was said that the management preferred to keep the car track running, even if it produced shoddy cars, and to bring those cars back for putting right later on, than to produce good cars at the beginning.
That is a fact. The scene was therefore set for a wild and vicious conflict and we all know what happened. What is not general knowledge is the events leading up to the stoppage and it is right that I should explain them, although briefly.
On 20th February, full-time union officials met senior management, and both sides recognised that there had been a deterioration at Ryton. The management accepted the unions' offer to carry out a full investigation. So far so good. Four union officials spent three days interviewing shop stewards and then submitted to the company a list of complaints and problems, incredibly covering six closely typed pages. The company replied with a 16-page document. I have both in my possession should anyone want to see them. They are quite remarkable. There were three further meetings between management and unions and there seemed to be broad agreement that there had been a marked improvement in relations at the factory. A great deal of work had been put in and it was paying off.
Then, out of nothing, came the row. In 14 years in the Coventry area, I have never known any dispute, provoked by either side, that brought such outright condemnation of one side or the other. It was clear that the management had decided on a conflict, whatever the cost. Mr. Hunt came thrashing out of the red corner and what was astonishing about his outburst was that it came only a few days after Mr. P. L. Griffiths, the director of industrial relations, had written to every man employed at Ryton. The House may be interested to know what he said:
In April 12,560 Avengers were produced, the second highest April vehicle production figure recorded. The highest was 12,686 in April, 1971. I want you to know that all your efforts are very much appreciated.
How strange! What a curious situation—the industrial relations director thanking the men for their gallant and noble efforts and the managing director threatening to withhold all future investment! How odd! It is apparent that not only did senior managers fail to talk to the workers, but they did not have much to do with each other either. It is clear that on that occasion one did not know what the other was doing. So the dispute was on.
Union officials offered a compromise—that is, they would recommend an immediate return to work and would carry out a full investigation into allegations of shoddy work. There was a specific promise that anyone found guilty would be disciplined by their fellow-workers—and again in the car industry there is a long history of that being done.
The management, after an adjournment of one and a half hours, said, "No". Union officials who had worked hard to end the dispute were left in no doubt that they were not required. "Comrades", senior management said to each other, "We are going to have a full-scale public row". And so it was.
In recent times this House has spent a good deal of time discussing picketing and, in particular, violence. I want to explain how violence came to be used on people who were engaged in peaceful and lawful picketing at Chrysler's Stoke plant at Coventry.
Some very dubious characters were employed by the company for a large sum of money to get new engines out

of Stoke and down to Dunstable. Those drivers—their pockets stuffed full of Chrysler blood money—drove large vehicles in the middle of the night at considerable speeds out of the factory. Violence was threatened on a wide scale and at least one serious assault was committed. The cowboys from London had achieved a remarkable success. It takes a brave man to drive a massive vehicle through a peaceful picket line at 40 miles an hour. They had earned their money and no doubt the company would have been proud of them—except for the fact that it went wrong.
The lorries were driven to a quiet village near my constituency and the containers parked in a secluded field, unfortunately the wrong one. It had recently been reclaimed. The containers sank slowly in the earth, one turned over—Hallelujah! Gilbert Hunt's brand new engines everywhere.
Chryslers wasted no time when it heard what had happened. This was four o'clock in the morning. It hired another firm to get to the field as quickly as possible to remove the evidence before the Press, radio and television got to the scene. It was hard luck from Chrysler's point of view that the men who turned up were members of the Transport and General Workers Union and refused to move anything. What we saw that night was pure Keystone Cops comedy. On Saturday in the popular Press these rag-and-bone men involved in picket-breaking were boasting of a "superb victory". That is a great one. Have a look at their "superb victory". Apart from dumping the engines in the shifting sands of Ryton-on-Dunsmore they had involved themselves in a major police inquiry with every possibility of criminal charges being brought, they had brought the company some of the worst publicity it had ever had and when they got to Dunstable they nearly killed a security guard when they drove in through the gates. If that is a superb victory God help them if they ever get involved in a failure.
I have related that story for one reason. Only a few hours earlier, before Chryslers sent those men in, union officials agreed to meet management for secret talks in defiance of many of the people on strike. This is something else that often happens in the motor industry. Trade


union officials and shop stewards often do things that are very unpopular with people on strike. That was a decision that was not widely welcomed but the talks took place. What did they get for their trouble? They were kicked in the teeth by the people with whom they were trying to deal.
I have mentioned the fact that practically everyone I have spoken to holds the view that Chryslers set out on a course which was certain to create a major strike. I cannot understand why the company wanted to tell the world that it was turning out shoddy cars and then handled the affair in a way which brought the most widespread criticism.
Everyone got into the act, even the television critic of the Coventry Evening Telegraph. He wrote:
What, I feel impelled to ask, is the Chrysler management afraid of? They won't talk to the Evening Telegraph, they won't talk to television, least of all they won't to Messrs. Fox and Byrne.
They are convenors at the plant. I now understand from my contacts inside the firm that Chryslers is developing a persecution complex. It has a curious idea that Fleet Street and the police have ganged up on the side of the strikers. I have waited a long time for that happy spectacle. If that is so, we might well take the view that we are really on our way.
There are hard lessons to be learned from this dispute and that is why I have dealt with it at length, to the exclusion of other and current stoppages. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to deal with those troubles. What I suggest to the Minister is that it seems to be a crazy negation of departmental responsibility to stand idly by and let a strike of this nature become a national issue which will not be forgotten for a long time to come. That is taking non-intervention to criminal lengths.
I come now to the wording of my motion. In answers to the House two weeks ago the Secretary of State said that he might set up some form of inquiry into labour relations in the motor industry. I suspect that he has one in mind to be conducted by the Commission on Industrial Relations. That will not do. Some of us do not regard that body as

an instrument of peace. What I suggest is that the Minister goes away from this debate and rings up Sir Jack Stamp, apologises for the abusive behaviour of the Prime Minister after the local government dispute had been settled and asks him if he will conduct a full and independent inquiry into labour relations in the motor industry.
I believe that any inquiry should be closely associated with the scheme announced by the Secretary of State which it is hoped will help provide some of the answers to boredom in industry and commerce. The decision has come perhaps 10 years too late but we cannot entirely blame the right hon. Gentleman for that. It is one that of all us with any connection with the motor industry should welcome. If nothing is done our problems in the motor industry will only get worse. I am bound to tell the Minister that I think we are heading for the sort of trouble that the Americans have been encountering in their advanced car plans.
This is what the Financial Times had to say about a plant built at Lordstown, Ohio to attract redundant steelworkers:
Accusations of vandalism and sabotage, the deliberate ripping of seats and smashing of dashboards, have been levelled at the workers and General Motors have changed the management.
The trouble in these motor plants seems to be a sign of general malaise in the industry. Some leaders wonder quite seriously whether Europe and the US will still be suitable places for motor manufacturing in the late 1980s or whether plants will not have been shifted to areas like Japan, Brazil and Spain where the memory of poverty is still sufficiently real to outweigh the tedium of the assembly line.
The motor industry is probably the most important private sector of the economy. What happens to it during the next 20 years will have a major impact on all our people, whether or not they work in the industry. Its well-being is vital to the country. It is no good the Government sitting on the sidelines, presumably offering up quiet prayer for peace and tranquility, living in the hope that something will turn up. It will not do.
I am certain that my car workers, led by some of the most responsible full-time officials in the land, want a full week's pay and are prepared to give a full week's work for it. They want peace and with good will on all sides it can be achieved.

3.58 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) moved his motion in general terms, and I thought that his opening words when he dealt with the economy and the psychological problems involved in this industry were words which will need to be pondered after the debate. That part of his speech justified his tabling the motion. I was sorry that he strayed from objectivity in the middle of his speech. It was a bit unfair that once the Chrysler dispute was over he should have dragged in, in a rather biased and prejudiced way, all sorts of evidence which is emotive and attractive to the headlines but not necessary fact. While he was taking that particular line I wondered what the reaction would be on the Labour benches if someone had traduced the union side in the same terms immediately after an important and crippling dispute had ended. It was unwise, and out of keeping with the spirit behind the motion and the first part of his speech.
When one has a dispute in one's constituency, it concentrates one's mind considerably. In my constituency there is the Perkins Diesel Group shut-down, and while the dispute is still on one wants to be as objective and helpful as possible. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is in the happy position of being able to move his motion with the Chrysler dispute—which obviously inspired it—having been settled. I wish that the Peterborough dispute was settled too.
The hon. Gentleman said that he could not understand why there were so many disputes in the motor car industry. I share that puzzlement, particularly in relation to the Perkins Diesel shut-down in Peterborough. In that firm industrial relations have been of the highest and best for years and the wage levels are higher than those applying anywhere else in the district—indeed they are so high that they have been of some embarrassment to me over the years. Farmers have said to me that the Perkins rate attracted workers from the farms, and other industries in the area have complained that they could not possibly compete with those wage levels. I have been asked whether anything could be done to stop Perkins cornering all the skilled labour so that the other firms would be able to carry on.
In a situation where the general industrial relations have been superb and where the relative wage levels have been very attractive I cannot understand why there has to be a shut-down so that all the output is lost.
The firm has been of vital importance not only to Peterborough and the people it employs but to the country. It is one of our great exporting companies which on two occasions has won the Queen's Award. It has a high reputation because of the great contribution it makes to the economic strength of the country.
On the facts confined to the Peterborough factory new terms have been agreed—a 6·9 per cent. increase in the basic rate, extra holiday days and equality for female workers. The improvement that has been agreed, looking only at the conditions existing in that factory, represent at least 7 per cent. increase, which is within the terms laid down by the Government.
What seems to give rise to the difference is a new word, the "in" word. That new word is "parity". I warn industries that the new word "parity" will be the basis of many claims which have no relation to the day-to-day problems of particular factories in particular areas. I beg those on the negotiating side for the unions who may want to use this emotive, attractive word to be careful that it does not boomerang. I ask everyone to let words have their true meanings.
As I understand "parity" it means equality with identical things. If the workers in Peterborough were asking for parity with the workers in Coventry and if the work being done in Coventry were identical to that being done in Peterborough, I could understand that there was, on the grounds of parity, a basis for talks on the meaning of the word. But the factory in Peterborough makes diesel engines—very fine ones. In Coventry the firm prefabricates the tractors in which the diesel engine goes. There is no identification with the work done and the product that comes from that work. All the two firms have in common is ownership. Massey-Ferguson is the owner of both the Coventry and the Peterborough plants. That is the only thing that the two plants have in common. The work that is done in each plant is quite different.
Equality of pay for identical work is right, but we should not go beyond that. I believe that detailed examination would show that to use "parity" as loosely as this is not in the interests of the employees or of management.
I am told that the difference between the wage levels of Peterborough and Coventry may be between £15 and £20 a week. On the face of it, if someone says to me "Why should I be between £15 and £20 worse off because I am working in a certain place?", I would have sympathy with him. If I were an engineer, my immediate reaction would be to feel that there should be some equalising. But that alone does not explain the position as it is here.
I have been able to make some sketchy investigations, without co-operation from either side. I was presumptuous enough to offer to be a mediator. I called myself the "honest broker interpreter". On many occasions the employees do not understand their own case and have no clear understanding of the management's answer. It is essential in disputes—and here I agree with the hon. Gentleman—that where people are no longer in work because of a shut-down they should, after they understand the full facts, have some say on whether or not they will go back to work or stay away. I should have liked to quiz both managers and conveners to find out what each case was and present it as objectively as possible. The employees could then have a secret ballot to decide whether the essential discussions should go on while they are still at work or during the shut-down.
I am told that it would not be far off the mark to say that the take-away money of the Peterborough workers last year was rather more than the take-away money of the Coventry workers.

Mr. Roy Hughes: rose——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I will give way in a moment.

Mr. Hughes: It is on this very point——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am making a constituency point. In a normal debate of general concern I am prepared to give way, but here 6,000 of my constituents are affected. I am concerned about their families and about the good name of

Peterborough. If it gets known as a rogue city its future will be prejudiced. I am also concerned about the loss to the nation. On the amount of money taken home last year—I cannot state it as a fact, but it is not far off the mark——

Mr. Hughes: On this point that the hon. Gentleman is labouring——

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have not laboured any point——

Mr. Hughes: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Malialieu): Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is not sitting down. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) must resume his seat.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the money taken home were based on the hours worked, the Peterborough workers would have had much more. The reason why the Coventry figures are as I have said is that because of stoppages and break-downs the actual amount of work done has meant that the amount of money taken home by the Coventry workers has been less than that taken home by the Peterborough workers. Perhaps different considerations apply in terms of hours worked, but it is worth bearing in mind that at the end of the day it is what the man takes home that counts.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Nonsense.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: We listen to a lot of extreme stuff from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I hope he will do me the courtesy to listen to my remarks.
On the difference in wages between Coventry and Peterborough, I wish to examine what would be the effect of an arrangement in this respect. Massey Ferguson's profits last year were in the region of £12 million. If that company were at once to grant a £15 to £20 increase in salary, that would eat up more than £6 million of the £12 million profit. If the company did that in Peterborough then it would have to have the same arrangement for its other workers at other plants; and if that happened it would mean that the £12 million profit would


very likely be turned into a loss of nearly £1 million in that one year.
I want to set right the idea that a profit of £12 million means that that sum is being shared among a few shareholders. We all know—and Labour Members should give their testimony to this factor more often—that the figure of £12 million profit is the seed corn from which the company has to invest to make certain that there is future employment. If those profits are eaten by high wages or any other sort of expenses so that there are no profits left, then the future prospects for the industry and the area in which it is situated will be greatly affected.
There is a further point to be considered. I understand that the management has said, "We are prepared to look at the general question of equalising salaries in the various areas, but we can make no commitment in principle." I want to try to get the support of some Labour Members on this point. If equality is awarded, can they guarantee that there will not be leapfrogging by those who consider that they have lost their differential, and would this not mean a further wage inflation which would undermine the whole economic strength of this country?
I do not think they could give that guarantee, because on 29th May the union and management agreed terms which then led the union to recommend to shop convenors that the shutdown should end and that discussions should continue while the factory was at work. Unhappily, the shop convenors did not recommend that that should be done and the shutdown is still on. That was on 29th May but on 15th June the convenors at the Coventry plant advised the industrial relations manager that if there were any commitment in respect of Peterborough the workers at Coventry would expect a restoration of former differentials. Therefore, if one were to give parity by bringing Peterborough up to Coventry, there is a clear indication that differentials would be demanded and leapfrogging would be under way.
On Wednesday 20th June the convenors at Coventry had informal discussions with the industrial relations manager on the problems of parity. They indicated that the only means of achieving parity at

Peterborough would be by Coventry taking a smaller annual award relative to Peterborough or by Coventry having a complete standstill until Peterborough caught up. They advised that they were not prepared to accept either alternative.
We shall ignore at our peril the dangers of these new words being brought into the old-established bases of discussion. I believe that there should be equalised pay for identical work, but we know that Coventry is a special and unique case. The reason that the firm has to pay extra money in Coventry is that the wage levels there are such that the firm would not get anybody to work for it unless it paid that sort of money. If such a course is likely to make a company bankrupt, the question might be asked "Why not withdraw from Coventry?" The answer is clear. If a firm has an investment of £25 to £50 million in an area, it must work and take all reasonable steps to try to preserve the capital investment that is already there. I know the City of Coventry well, and perhaps I live nearer to the city than do some of those who represent the city in this House.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Come off it!

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I refer particularly to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). I am dealing particularly with the people with knowledge of the area, people who live in it and understand it. The people in the area must be careful that they do not cut their own throats. They must be careful to see that in exploiting their special situation they should not make the area less attractive to all firms.
My general solution to the problem is that of arbitration. There will always be differences of view as to what is right or wrong, and we must find some way of using a compulsory arbitrator to come in as referee and settle these matters between two honest sides. Management do not want such an arrangement. Management representatives have told me, "We do not want any third party coming in to tell us what our financial commitments are to be." Unions do not want the arrangement, and I have been shouted down by Labour Members on a number of occasions when I have suggested this idea.


They have said, "We do not want arbitrators because there is nobody we can trust."
That is a slander on England. We must get to the point where we can have somebody who can settle honest differences of view. I have much sympathy with my constituents at Perkins, but I cannot ignore the understandable reaction of management not to commit themselves to a principle which may spell bankruptcy to them and upset the balance of their industry.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and his conciliation officers on taking some initiative last week in the Perkins dispute. As a result of that initiative the management and unions agreed on a formula which could have ended the shutdown. Unhappily, as I have said, the convenors did not agree and it did not come off. My right hon. Friend must take the initiative. This is a matter of great concern to the nation and it may have terrible effects in terms of my constituents and their future prospects. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take a stand and take the sort of action which he and his officials took last week.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby on having raised this matter, but I am sorry that his speech lacked objectivity. However, we must pay attention to his opening words which were wise and which posed a problem that we should all ponder. Let us see whether we can find some way of bringing the two sides together under a common denominator. Let us hope that the good health of our industry will be restored so that the wealth of our nation and our people's standard of living will not suffer.
Far too often Labour Members feel that it is their job to support the unions, whatever the unions do and whatever they say. Often we on our side feel that we have to put the opinion of management. The truth is that there are not two sides to the situation any more. Management and unions together represent industry. Unless this is clearly understood, I tremble for the future of this country. However, we shall find a way out of the problem, and I am optimisic abou the future. We in this House can set the machinery in motion, and I hope that by our words today we shall see that the right course is taken.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I shall not engage in comparisons between the experiences in Coventry of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and my own in the city which I have had the honour to represent in this House for 28 years. I say merely that Coventry has become a pacemaker in wage earnings because of high trade union organisation, because of the high skills and craftsmanship of its workers and because Coventry is outstanding in the way in which it has been a leader not only in labour relations but also in productivity.
I join the hon. Member for Peterborough in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), who initiated this debate. In a speech which was marked by wit, eloquence and profundity my hon. Friend dealt with some of the issues which have been observed as affecting the motor industry in the recent Chrysler strike. We all welcome the news that the strike has ended. However, the problems remain. They are problems of leisure day work, of piece work, of the boredom and the fatigue of the "track". They are problems of general labour relations. All these remain.
Among those problems perhaps the greatest and most important, because it affects so many people in this country, is that of the attitude of the multinational companies which are now present in Britain. I need quote only one statistic to show the impact of the multinational companies. One worker in every 17 in this country is employed by a multinational company. American investment in Britain, largely from international and multi-national companies, is of the order of £2,000 million.
Even if we for our own part counter-balance that investment by a still greater investment in the United States, it remains true that American investment in Britain is more significant because, whereas the Americans have made their investment in the key sectors of our industry, our investment in the United States is disseminated through consumer purposes like launderettes which are not to be compared in their influence with the influence which the Americans exercise through their multi-national investment here.
The strike at Chryslers has posed one important question. How can Britain cope with the power of multi-national companies whose interests transcend frontiers? Some hon. Members have been greatly occupied with their fears about British loss of sovereignty to the Common Market institutions. I am surprised that those who have been most vocal in their criticism of that loss of sovereignty have not shown an equally articulate concern about the factual loss of sovereignty involved in the fact that through their multi-national investment the Americans have such power without responsibility here.
This question raised during the Chrysler dispute was made manifest when one of the Chrysler directors threatened that future investment would not be applied here but would be moved outside, possibly to Spain. The fact that that threat was made in the same context as the threat to move Ford out of England by Mr. Henry Ford II on the very day that he lunched with the Prime Minister is a matter which affects the whole of our national economy and a matter of which we must take cognisance.
It is not my purpose today to em-embitter any situation existing in the motor industry. I support the demand made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby for an inquiry. I might say in passing that those journalists who have criticised the demand for an inquiry into the motor industry on the ground that when this House is in difficulty it always calls for an inquiry should reflect that this House must be the grand inquest of the nation. Whenever a problem arises such as the present one affecting the motor industry it is right that there should he an inquiry. My hon. Friend calls for an inquiry into labour relations. I go further. I believe that the inquiry must be into the very structure of the motor industry. Unless the inquiry goes beyond the simple fact of confrontation between capital and labour and goes into the very structure of the industry it will be impossible to arrive at any constructive conclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby made some observations about the new Chairman of Chrysler, Mr. Gilbert Hunt, who has superseded Lord Rootes. The hon. Member for Peterborough spoke

about the extreme attitudes taken by my hon. Friend, no doubt when my hon. Friend referred to Mr. Hunt. However, I was not astonished by my hon. Friend's extremeness. On the contrary, I was astonished by his moderation.
I hope to show that the rôle of Mr. Gilbert Hunt in this matter is one which has done grave damage not only to Chrysler and its workers but also to the relationship between management and labour in this country. Therefore, I make no apology for returning to the subject because it illustrates some of the gravest implications of the Chrysler strike. When Mr. Gilbert Hunt took over as managing director of Chrysler, according to the Sunday Times Business News of 1st October 1967, he said:
When you take over a job like this, you have to be tough immediately. It's no good waiting five years to be tough—you'll never do it. The hatchet gets blunt…".
This hatchet gentleman is not untrained in North American methods.
Here I interpose another observation. No one would wish to use the occasion of these difficulties between certain multinational companies and their workers for an exercise in anti-Americanism. No one would wish to use the occasion to encourage any latent xenophobia in this matter. At the same time there are techniques of management which were used in the past in the United States and which I condemn strongly. When anyone tries to revive these techniques, which had such damaging effects in the United States, I shall do all that I can to resist them.
Everyone knows that Chrysler was among the leading firms in the United States in the 1930s in employing thugs and strong-arm men as strike breakers and picket breakers to enforce the company's will against labour. The company resisted the organisation of labour. It was opposed to any form of trade unionism, and it used men of violence to promote those ends. It was noted by the La Follette Committee, a Congressional Committee in the United States, that Chrysler spent 76,000 dollars in a single year to use the espionage services of a company called the Corporation Auxiliary Company to engage in espionage and strong-arm tactics against its workers.
That is old history of the 1930s. I refer to it only because in the past few weeks


at Coventry we have seen an attempt to revive methods which everyone in this House will deplore. This kind of espionage is novel in this country. But the methods used to end the Chrysler strike normally would be hardly credited.
Let me recall to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, who said that Mr. Gilbert Hunt was not a reactionary employer, of an event which occurred early in 1969. I regret that I am obliged to personalise this matter in order to indicate the kind of problem which may arise in the future.
On 18th March 1969 Mr. Hunt wrote a letter, which has now been published, to the Chancellor of Warwick University. It was headed "Strictly Confidential". Mr. Hunt wrote:
At my request, Mr. N. P. Catchpole, our Director of Legal Affairs, attended a meeting of the Coventry Labour Party on 3rd March, which was being addressed by Dr. D. Montgomery.
Dr. Montgomery was an American lecturer on industrial affairs at Warwick University. The letter went on:
As you will see from the attached notes of the meeting, nothing was said by him which would involve prosecution under the 1919 Aliens Restriction Act, but I felt it would be advisable nevertheless for you to have a copy of these notes for your confidential files.
There follows the report from which I quote only the first sentence:
accompanied by Mr. T. Norton, security officer, Stoke, I duly attended a meeting of the Coventry Labour Party at its offices on Monday 3rd March.
I have often wondered who these strange faces are at meetings of the Coventry Labour Party. Be that as it may, what was the subversive subject about which this American lecturer was lecturing to the Coventry Labour Party? What was the subject which prompted Mr. Gilbert Hunt to seek to invoke the Aliens Restriction Act which, the House will recall, was designed to prevent foreigners from stimulating strikes or labour disputes in Britain? All that Dr. Montgomery was concerned with was to lecture on the difference between measured day work and piece rate work. That was the theme of the lecture. It was as simple and as innocent as that. Yet Mr. Hunt and his entourage was obviously attempting to use American methods of espionage which the Americans themselves discarded more than 30 years ago.
If that were all, perhaps one should not seek to return to the subject. However, the affair of the pickets and the strong-arm men described so dramatically and effectively by my hon. Friend is something of which the House must surely take cognisance. One of the reasons why the Chrysler workers were successful in this dispute was precisely that, even where it was not articulate, public opinion on the whole resented and deplored some of the attitudes taken by the management.
Indeed, the break-out by these hired men with their lorries, clandestinely taking engines out of the Stoke works at night, with all the technique of men accustomed to acting in ways which most of us would deplore, is symbolical and significant and, indeed, is as much to be condemned as the break-in at the Watergate.
I say that because I believe that Chrysler might well consider, in dealing with Mr. Gilbert Hunt, that as a result of his intervention it lost £2 million. It might consider perhaps giving him a golden handshake of £1 million because it would be cheap at the price.
More than that, I hope and believe that hon. Members will strongly condemn any attempt to revive these old-fashioned and damaging methods of using violence to bring workers to their knees.
I assure the Minister and anyone who is concerned with this matter that those methods will not work in Coventry. Indeed, I do not believe that they will work anywhere with the organised labour movement in Britain.
In the course of the dispute another matter arose. Unfavourable comparisons were made between labour relations in the British motor industry, in particular in Coventry, and the calm and contented way in which in Chrysler-Simca in France there has not been one strike in the last six years.
I ask the House to consider how this docile labour force has come about. This docile labour force is composed almost exclusively of immigrant workers, most of them poor workers from North America who must send remittances home to their families. They live in tin-can shanty towns in great measure and, because of this material dependence on their job, they certainly have the discipline of the threat of dismissal and it is a powerful one.
I hope that we in this country have advanced beyond that. I hope that we have advanced beyond the time when management disciplines labour by the threat of hunger. I hope that we will not hear too often this comparison quoted between Chrysler-Simca and Chrysler Coventry.
The fashonable threat also is to move industry to Spain. What happens in Spain? Even in Spain, even in that Fascist country, where some of the motor companies threaten to move their operations, there will not be a labour force content to accept inflictions which affect their human dignity. Today in Spain there is a very large strike going on at the Leyland operation where the workers, resentful and resistant, have struck, and now they have been locked out by the Leyland management.
All I want to emphasise in that connection is that it behoves the Government, for it is their responsibility, to deal with those multi-national companies which at the drop of a hat, as a result of a dispute over 1½ hours pay, are prepared to threaten to move elsewhere to make their workers toe the line.
I wish to touch on the way in which the Chrysler company slowly ate its way into the British economy. It will be recalled that in 1964 the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that Chrysler was buying itself into the country. He said specifically—this was a pledge by a Tory Minister—that control would remain in the United Kingdom.
Later in 1964 I led a deputation of shop stewards from the Humber works, as it was then known, to see my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Technology. We protested in strong terms against this United States takeover. The Minister made reassuring noises. In 1967, when Chrysler made its second bite, the Minister again reassured us.
Again in 1972, when Chrysler finally acquired what was left—the minority British shareholding in the company, the last foothold that the British shareholder could have to criticise the Chrysler management, the Chrysler ownership—what did the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs call it? He called it a cosmetic

operation. Cosmetic operations are usually used to improve ugly faces. I cannot say from experience of what happens that the cosmetic operation of taking over the last remnant of the British shareholding did anything to improve matters.
In 1964 I asked the right hon. Member for Barnet, the then Chancellor, whether it was
not the case that the trustees of the Rootes family—the General Trust of Nassau—are precluded by law from giving guarantees for the future, so that the majority shareholding in Rootes may at some time in the future come under the control of Chrysler's? Quite apart from the financial manipulations with which we are concerned today, is it not the case that in Chrysler's we have a firm with an unstable record at a time of recession, and that, if it were administering this important section of the British motor industry, if it had to choose between sacking men in Detroit or men in Coventry or Linwood, it would certainly act to the disadvantage of this country?
The Minister replied:
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Bahamas are within the United Kingdom exchange control. The second question is highly hypothetical, particularly because the firm is not administering, and will not administer, the Rootes Company."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th June 1964, Vol. 696, c. 38–9.]
That was a pledge. My forecasts in this connection have regrettably come true.
The fact remains that Chrysler has explicit obligations and duties to its workers. They are obligations and duties which were set out in a communication from Chrysler to the Minister of Technology on 16th January 1967 when Chrysler took its second large slice of the company which gave it a major holding. The chief of these undertakings reads as follows:
Chrysler will not initiate any action to impair either the home or overseas operations or the management and direction of Rootes as a British company in its relations with the Government, labour, its British shareholders and the public.
When Chrysler threatened that it would move its investment overseas in certain contingencies the Secretary of State had a duty to refer to this undertaking and to intervene as any refusal to make investment in Britain obviously contradicts Chrysler's specific pledge. I charge him with not having done so. I believe that he failed in his duty, at the time of the Chrysler strike, to remind it and any other multi-national company


that it had not the right to bring pressure on British workers and, through them, on the British economy to pursue multifarious activities.
I do not believe that the Chrysler dispute, in which the strikers had a large measure of public support for their dignity in the face of managerial provocation and menace, will have been in vain if Chrysler learns the lesson that labour relations must not be what they were in Detroit in 1930. Coventry workers are not helots serving a superior technology masterminded 3,000 or more miles away. Coventry workers, like most people in Britain, want a British motor industry, certainly with American investment, but in which their rights and duties can find fulfilment. It is for the British Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, to ensure that the British motor industry lives up to its traditions and name.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. David Madel: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) in a debate on the motor industry. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on initiating the debate. The hon. Gentleman declared his interest in Chrysler, pointing out that the car plant was in his constituency. The truck and heavy commercial vehicle and van plant is in Dunstable in my constituency.
I also join the hon. Member for Coventry, North in protesting against the reckless, foolish action of trying to smuggle or charge engines through the picket lines at the dead of night and bringing them to Dunstable. It will be no surprise to the House that when the engines that were got away arrived at Dunstable they were immediately blacked. If 500 had been got out of Ryton or Stoke in that way they would have been blacked as well.
It is wrong to suggest that the pattern of labour relations is uniform throughout all Chrysler plants. Dunstable is often a casualty of labour disputes, not the cause of them. We are delighted that there has been a settlement in the Coventry area, but we are still dependent on a settlement in the Perkins dispute to get back to full production because the diesels for medium and heavy commercial vehicles are supplied from Peterborough.
This year has been a very much improved period for Chrysler trucks in Dunstable. Every factory has certain small local disputes, and Dunstable has not been entirely free of them, but production is running at a record level. Almost £3 million has been invested in the Dunstable plant since 1970. There is every sign that if outside suppliers can resolve their difficulties we shall have a continuing good year in Dunstable especially as the market is more buoyant than in 1971 and 1972.
I think that we can link this debate with that initiated by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) a few weeks ago on health and safety at work. As has been said, it is often the repetitive nature of the job on the car or truck assembly line that can cause a stoppage or a dispute.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said. This is an important factory in relations in the motor industry. However, does he agree that it is common to industries other than the motor industry? Therefore, it is important, in the context of the motor industry, not to exaggerate this point.

Mr. Madel: I do not wish to exaggerate the point. The motor industry is special and I want to indicate why I think the dispute happened and to make suggestions how to avoid the difficulties. We cannot simply measure a stoppage in vehicles lost per day. That is a slightly misleading phrase. The number of vehicles lost per day can be made up on other days by masses of overtime and Sunday working. If a newspaper stopped production for a day, I should regard that as lost. Therefore, to refer to so many vehicles lost per day because of a dispute is slightly misleading. However, a stoppage has an important effect on local suppliers to the car industry. All motor cities and towns in Britain have a whole host of allied industries totally dependent on uninterrupted production by the car plants in order that they may be able to pay good wages and make profits, and so on.
The motor industry is a relatively young post-war industry, neither side of which has the depth of understanding of each other's problems such as we have


in our older industries. In a sense, industrial relations in the motor industry should be much better than anywhere else, not least because it is not associated with the heavy and massive unemployment of the 1930s. I believe that one of the reasons that industrial relations are not good is that the motor car industry has been used like a yo-yo by successive Governments in their formulation and use of economic policies.
There has been a great lack of understanding of what a squeeze means with short-time working three days a week and lay-offs. Then, when the order comes out—it is not an order from the motor industry; it is virtually the result of Government policy—expand, build up production, run flat out, the industry brings in overtime and night shift working—we do not know enough about that yet—and we get problems with massive increased production.
The motor industry needs a sustained period of growth which will give people a sense of job security and of continuity of employment in that industry.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that an effective way of ensuring long-term uninterrupted growth would be the abolition of the car tax?

Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend is preaching to the converted. I am not happy about that tax. I have in the past put down Questions on this matter and discussed it in economic debates. However, we have had a hint from the Chancellor that, if necessary, he will not hesitate to take action on it.
The country with the most experience of the car industry and which should be the hallmark, the guiding light, of how to handle its problems is the United States of America. Yet we find in the Economist of 26th May, in a report commissioned by the President and entitled "Work in America", prepared by a task force for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, that 76 per cent. of blue-collar workers and 57 per cent. of white-collar workers were dissatisfied with their jobs. The report talks about a serious dispute at Lordstown in the United States and states:
The strikers there were young—about a quarter of America's total work force is under

30—and it is young workers, with high economic and social expectations, who are seeking middle-class comforts and status that their jobs are unlikely ever to provide.
American experience should have foreseen this problem. We are now producing our own reports. One report, "On the Quality of Working Life", published by the Department of Employment, refers to a report 21 years ago in the United States, "The Man on the Assembly Line". That report says that what people most disliked was the machine pacing.
The next most disliked feature was that many found it physically tiring…Men also said that there was little or no possibility of using their brains, developing skills, attending to quality of work".
In another passage the report states:
We may note, however, that a constant trickle of later reports from several countries, some of them written from very different points of view and arriving at different conclusions, seem to confirm the nature of the work experience of the man (or woman) on production-line work as described in the 1952 report.
One would hope that after 21 years since that report Europe, which has expanded its car industry rapidly, would be taking action. We find it in some areas. The classic cases often quoted are Volvo and Saab in Sweden. But there is also Fiat. Fiat manufacture the largest number of smaller cars in Europe. In a report in the Financial Times of 18th May there is this passage:
 'Islands' for the completion of one whole assembly job are to be created. They will be fed by a stock of cars so as not to be tied down to any kind of timing…Vastly increased investments are required to equip four lines with tools and machines instead of one. The idea is to rid the assembly line of the one monotonously repeated movement, the horror'.
of repeated work.
Europe has much to do in this respect. We are the No. 1 growth zone for cars and trucks, and I include Eastern Europe in that. The late Mr. Khrushchev used to say that he would try to create a goulash Communism. We may be trying to create a motor car Communism. There is a vast market there.
Industry—and especially the motor industry—has to throw its weight behind job enrichment, and that means the total commitment of industry and a greatly increased amount of investment. The result will not be achieved if 20 per cent. of manufacturers do that and the other


80 per cent. do not and therefore undercut the 20 per cent.
The problem is extremely large. The report "On the Quality of Working Life" says on page 49:
It seems certain that we shall have an increasing need for technically-qualified versatile, 'responsible' workers"—
I am not sure that "responsible" is the right word; I think it should be "responsive"—
and probable that the educational system under its current philosophies will produce too many people with opposite characteristics.
We need to develop our thinking about the future of work having regard to the fact that manufacturing, although of continuing importance, is likely to be a smaller segment of employment in future and much less typical of what will occupy a worker's time.
We are nearing phase 3, when alterations are to be made. I must emphasise again that part of the document from which I have quoted which goes back to the 1952 report and says that the next most disliked feature on the assembly line was that many found it physically tiring. I hope that in phase 3 the Government will ease up on the restrictions which they imposed under phase 2 on hours of work and will allow the car industry, for example, to give its workers less time in which to do the work. In other words, a reduction of hours of work is essential.
The onus is very much on management and Government to enrich jobs and to try to deal with assembly line monotony, but there is one reform which the trade unions could make quickly, and that is to create a single craft union in the motor industry.
That cannot be done by management decree, by the Government or by the House of Commons passing a resolution. The Economist of 26th May said:
In their negotiations this autumn the improvements which the United Automobile Workers will be pressing for at work include improved health and safety standards, the end of compulsory overtime and more say in running the plant.
A self-evident truth appears in paragraph (6)(d) of the revised procedural agreement at Vauxhall Motors. It says:
The management expresses its complete willingness at all times to see Trade Union officials concerned or interested in either local or Company—wide matters and to consult and

keep them informed when matters affecting employees and their work are under consideration.
Because of that, both sides in the car industry will be the better able to carry out the spirit of the recommendation if there is a single car union and if there is greater recognition that there is something special about the car industry and that we do not know enough about the effects of monotonous assembly-line work. I hope that the Government will continue the work that they are setting in train after the publication of this report.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: I have Britain's biggest car plant in my constituency. May I therefore straight away declare another interest. I am a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and a member of the TGWU branch at the factory.
If there is one thing that I have learned in the three years that I have been in this House, it is that I should treat with caution the disputes that arise from time to time in the car industry because it is extremely difficult, unless one is in the plant, in the industry and somewhere near to the heart of the problem, even to begin to understand it. There is, on the part of both management and trade unions, a certain dislike of politicians who are only too prepared—and this applies to Ministers also—to step in at the drop of a hat to make quick and easy publicity out of a statement or action relating to a dispute.
I hope to be associated with the Northfield constituency, with Longbridge within it, for many years to come. The same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis), where many of my car workers live. I know that my hon. Friend will want to be established in his constituency and take an interest in car industry affairs. One of my constituents, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher), whose husband works in the great factory in my constituency, will expect me to take a continuing and deepening interest in the affairs of the car industry.
This is an industry to which one cannot pay too much attention. It is


extremely complex and difficult to understand. After becoming a Member of this House, I went into the car plant for a fortnight, full-time, to try to understand the problems facing the men and management. One of the things that struck me almost immediately was the understanding that existed between the management and the men. On reading the headlines in the Press, watching the television screen of listening to the radio, one gets the impression that management and men are continually at each others' throats. I can speak only for British Leyland at Longbridge, but that was not my impression during my fortnight in the works, and it has not been my impression during the various meetings that I have had with the management side or in my dealings with the trade union side.
I repeat that I am talking only about British Leyland, and not about Chrysler, General Motors or Ford, and I have no doubt from what has been said so far, and from what may be said in the rest of the debate, that some distinction is drawn between the way in which British Leyland runs its affairs and the way in which American-owned companies operate.
Industrial relations are a difficult subject for the House to deal with at any time, particularly as we are far removed from the source of dispute. It is even more difficult for the Government to deal with the problem. Over the last three years, the Government's attempts to deal with industrial relations have come almost to nought, and it is significant that today no reference has been made to the Industrial Relations Act.
We all remember those heated, impassioned debates of three years ago. The Act was going to solve everything and put all the problems to rights. The dulcet tones of hon. Gentlemen opposite today come as no surprise to hon. Members on these benches who knew that at some time hon. Gentlemen opposite would have to come face to face with reality and deal with the real world and people outside in a human way rather than in the sloganised fashion of three years ago.
Industrial relations are a complex subject anywhere, but they are even more so in the car industry, and perhaps we

should ask ourselves why that is so. First, it is because of the sheer size of the industry. British Leyland and its separate industries control the lives of 5 million people in this country. Dependants of their work force add up to that total. If one takes all the other car industries into account one realises that a massive section of the British economy is involved, and a small cough in Longbridge, or in the Girling Brake factory at Cardiff, or at Dunstable or Coventry can often spread pneumonia in a short space of time throughout that large section of the British economy.
This is a complex industry. We should remind ourselves that, after a house, a motor car is the biggest and most complex single possession of ordinary consumers. Then there is the nature of the production process. Hon. Members have referred to the assembly line. The motor car is the largest mass-produced product, with tens of thousands of small pieces going into each one. It only needs a halt in a factory producing one of those vital components and the assembly lines in Longbridge, Coventry, Dagenham and Luton come to a grinding halt.
Then there is the fierce competitiveness of the industry. The fortunes of the Austin 1300 and, therefore, the wage packets of the workers who produce it may depend on the efforts of another company somewhere in Coventry or Dagenham to turn out a car in direct competition with it. This competitive pressure produces an atmosphere in which management and men are working to limits that no other industrial worker or manager has to face.
Can we be surprised, therefore, given these facts, at the level of disputes within the industry? I do not think we can. After all, the system does not allow any room for error. It allows for hardly any difference of opinion. Experience in all countries, wherever cars are made, is much the same. Nor does it matter whether the industry is State-owned or privately-owned. It is the industrial process itself that is the killer. This is the fact that binds car workers together whether they work for the State-owned Renault factory in France, British Leyland at Longbridge or General Motors in Detroit. All these industries, wherever they are sited and whatever their form of ownership, have similar difficulties.
What part can politicians and Governments play in bringing about a saner framework within which the industry can conduct its affairs more reasonably? Much has been said already about the nature of the work in the car factories. If anything is to be done about this it must be done internationally. It would be impossible for British Leyland or the British industry as a whole to do something about conditions for their working people while the industries in Germany, France, Japan and America were not prepared to do the same. However, in the absence of moves in that direction, we should do more to understand the pressures and tensions faced by people in the industry.
There is far too much ignorance about what life in the industry is like. It is very difficult for both management and men. They are working daily to the dictates of the market place. There is now the rising question of international competitiveness, with Toyotas running in our high streets and motorways and an influx of cars from the Continent. Our industry, whose investment and management has been backward for so many years, suddenly, has to compete with people who have brand new plants and ultra-modern management ideas. There is a lot the House can do to try to understand the nature of this industry.
We should also understand—I mean no disrespect to Japan—that the British worker is not a Japanese worker. We have a totally different experience. I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time and in the march forward of human experience and world history, we shall reach a common plateau. But at present it is impossible to compare, as some hon. Members opposite often do, the efforts of a British car worker in Dagenham or Longbridge with those of a Toyota worker in Japan. Their experiences are entirely different and, therefore, the people who have been moulded by those experiences come out of them totally different people.
We should also understand, before it is too late, that the car company in my constituency, British Leyland, is the only part of the British car industry that we have left. Everything else has gone to the Americans. I hope and I am sure that the House and the Government hope, that British Leyland remains in business and competitive and that it can maintain

for Britain a stake in one of the world's most vital industries.
Also, we should start thinking more earnestly about the problems of life on the assembly line. Should an advanced country any longer ask men and women to work at such a pace? It is easy to say that they get amply rewarded. I dare say that when young children went down the pits in the 19th century people argued that they were well paid. Our history books show that some of the strongest opponents of reform there were the parents and some of the unions concerned.
We have arrived at a point in our industrial development—we are the oldest industrialised nation on earth—at which we should, because of our experience, knowledge and understanding, examine more closely the way in which we ask some of our citizens to work for us and produce the goods we want. I do not suggest that we should stop making motor cars, any more than it was suggested in the 19th century that we should stop mining coal. But I do suggest that we return to a system of employment in which jobs can be enriching and the learning process can be restored.
That is what working is about. Unfortunately, all learning has been taken out of work on an assembly track. That can he done with animals, and they will eventually turn on us. It is my view—I have no particular expertise in this field—that many of the disputes in the industry stem from the fact that people get bored. Perhaps, on a day like this, a foreman will be rude to a worker in a plant somewhere, or something will go wrong with the track or the feed of parts and men will look through the windows at the bright sunshine and think of a river and their rods and lines at home. That will be enough excuse to say, "We have had enough of this; let us get out and live a little."
Fortunately, British Leyland, from which I had a letter this morning, is addressing itself to many of these problems. I cannot speak for other companies, but I know that in the five years that Lord Stokes has been in charge there has been a great deal of advance in British Leyland in improving working conditions. At Longbridge there is a great deal of willingness on the part of the trade unions to ensure that the


standards of their members are maintained and improved but, beyond that, that the existence of British Leyland is assured. There was a statement last week in the Birmingham Mail, while Lord Stokes was in Birmingham, to the effect that the works committee, the shop stewards and the whole of the trade union movement in the city were entirely behind the management and the company in their efforts to turn the Allegro, their new model, into a world-beater. Within British Leyland there is on both sides a determined effort to ensure that the company becomes a success.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: What the hon. Gentleman has just said about British Leyland in Birmingham, and about the management and the trade union side, is also true in respect of Oxford.

Mr. Carter: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. The board of British Leyland is now diverse in its approach. Those of us who represent workers in factories in this group know that there has been a considerable attempt by British Leyland to ensure that all its workpeople throughout the country operate under conditions that are as near as possible equal to those of others. One could say something about that apropos the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). In the running of an industry which is as complex as the car industry, it is of great assistance to workers to have very nearly the same conditions in all the different sections of it.
We have talked a great deal about the conditions of the industry. No doubt more will be said. We have talked about the way in which workers are asked to perform their eight hours a day on an assembly line. I am convinced that while our society demands from the car industry that five to 10 cars a minute come off the assembly track, while the conditions of workers remain as they are and while the Government insist, from time to time, in disturbing relationships between management and men—the Industrial Relations Act, for example—we shall continue to experience difficulties. But we should not be upset by them or unduly disturbed. As a nation, as a Parliament, as political parties and as a Government we should try rather more

to understand the nature of things and to deal more with the profounder aspects of industries such as the car industry, and we should stop sloganising.
There is far too much sloganising. We saw a great deal of that three years ago. The present Government have now discovered that in industrial relations they have to get to the heart of the matter and to deal with problems in a conciliatory way, acting as arbiters, and not, as occurred about three years ago, as a Government who were attempting everywhere to bring about conflict in order to solve problems.
Hon. Members on the Government side of the House often say that we must preserve the British way of life in all its forms. I happen to believe that the British shop steward is a part of that way of life. What the Chrysler Corporation, the Ford Company and General Motors must understand is that one can get rid of half a dozen shop stewards but the state of things is such that they will simply be replaced by six others who are likely to act in the same way.
I sincerely hope that the experience of the Chrysler Corporation last week has brought that home clearly to it. If it has, I am sure that the disruption that occurred in Coventry last week, although it may be repeated, may well not be repeated to the same extent.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: We have had a thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) following two other speeches from the Opposition benches which were distinctly provocative. I must suggest that it is a little discourteous to the House for the mover of the motion, for one reason or another, to call for an inquiry and to cast a slur on the CIR, and then to leave the Chamber.
I have a constituency interest in this matter. About 2,000 of my constituents work in the motor and motor supply industry, of whom about 500 work at the Ryton plant of Chrysler. I have had some direct contact with them since the dispute began. I echo the feelings of relief that have been expressed on both sides of the House that the present dispute has been resolved, although undoubtedly the basic problems remain.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) presented a somewhat one-sided and colourful picture—too colourful—of the recent dispute. I shall not dwell on that for too long. I am not happy about the appearance of management and management practices at that plant. At the very least, it was unwise of the management to have a confrontation over an issue such as this, and to require reject panels to be put through the plant and then to reject them again on the ground of shoddy work.
I have accepted also the genuine grievance of those who are not employed in the body shop and, therefore, not directly involved—they include some of my constituents—who had their holiday pay stopped. Perhaps the management's action was understandable, if a little immature, in showing its frustration at yet further trouble in that plant.
No one whom I have heard has yet denied the Chrysler Corporation's claim that Ryton has given more trouble through industrial disputes than any of its other plants throughout the world. That trouble has hit Chrysler's immediate profits but, much more important, it has prejudiced further development, which means jobs in the future. It has cut the incomes and living standards of that moderate majority of Chrysler employees who just want to work and earn a decent wage every day of every working week and every week of the working year. I should like to tell the House of a comment made to me by a Chrysler employee, whom I take to be a moderate. He said that he found himself frequently caught between the management and the militant trades union leaders.
It is management's responsibility to put these matters right. I welcome particularly what the hon. Member for Northfield said about the efforts of British Leyland in that respect. British Leyland's lead could well be followed. Management, however, cannot do anything without the co-operation of the men's leaders. If the policy of those leaders, or the conveners or shop stewards in the crucial section of a factory, is not to co-operate, the answer lies in the votes of those who elect them to their office.
My constituents have asked about the future of the Ryton plant. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial

Development has supplied me with some information about that. I have already pursued the point that the Minister should immediately have gone back to Chrysler and asked for reassurances concerning the original undertakings. I am told that these were reaffirmed in December 1972, only a few months before this present dispute. My right hon. Friend has told me that Chrysler reaffirmed at that time not only that it was holding to the remaining five undertakings but also that it intended to continue the operations of Chrysler United Kingdom in manufacturing vehicles for the British market and for export and utilising as fully as possible its extensive plants in the United Kingdom. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend if he will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development to seek a specific assurance from Chrysler that these undertakings apply to the Ryton plant and that it will not be diminished in size or its operations moved elsewhere.
On the wider issues my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) has suggested more to help in the resolution of these problems than Opposition spokesmen. We have had analyses by the dozen of what the problems are. We have had references to the difficulties resulting from the type of work, the monotony of work on the track, and reference to the piece work system and its replacement by measured day work. There have been references to the fact that there are too many unions in the industry, and I endorse entirely what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about this. The question is what can the Government do about it and how can the House legislate. We can go on referring to job enrichment; we can make some sort of pious exhortation that the entire motor industry throughout the world will realise the necessity for it. But that is not real life. Someone has to give a lead, and it is the responsibility of management to do so. I do not believe that suggestions for legislation can come from this House.
I should like to draw management's attention to the figures from Sweden—I believe they come from Volvo. That company claims that its new group approach is probably 10 per cent. less efficient in labour productivity. If that is so it should be compared with the 25 per cent. loss of production which Lord


Stokes claimed for British Leyland alone last year, and that was largely due to industrial disputes.
If peaceful working can come from the group approach, clearly it is the way in which the industry should go, on commercial grounds if on no other. I accept what hon. Members on both sides have said about the need for job enrichment but monotony is not confined to the motor industry. There are operations in the hosiery industry, the biggest in my constituency, where there is a unit production cycle of as little as five seconds. That is done by female labour.
However, the Government can take some action when it comes to replacing piece work with measured day work. I refer especially to the Government's policy under phase 3. It has been shown that it is necessary to encourage, sometimes through increased financial payment, the change from one system to the other. I hope that where a genuine scheme is proposed for those factories where measured day work is not yet in operation and where there is every reasonable expectation of success, such schemes will be permitted perhaps even as exceptional cases under phase 3. I hope also that where any sort of group bonus scheme can be worked out in a section of a plant it will fall within the terms of a meaningful and genuine productivity agreement and again will be permitted under phase 3. This then is an area in which the Government can act.
However, there is no doubt that the best resolution of the problem can come from co-operation between management and employees. This will not stem from any magical change of attitude. It must come from improved consultation and improved involvement. I shall mention the Industrial Relations Act [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby knows very well not only of some of the advantages of the Act which have been conferred upon workers but also of the benefit brought by the code of practice.

Mr. William Price: The hon. Member must be joking!

Mr. Edelman: Is the hon. Member not aware that the Industrial Relations Act

is for the workers probably the most hated Act of the century? Does he not realise that the Act was the beginning of confrontation and it is largely because of it that so many industrial disputes now arise?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member no doubt studied the Act in great detail and will know that it is not the contents of the Act which are offensive. The offensive part stems from the synthetic opposition built up by Labour Members and their friends in the trade union movement. The Act will in due course come to be thanked by both employers and trade unions throughout industry.
Through the code of practice employers have been encouraged to put their houses in order and to give the right degree of priority to industrial relations. In that code of practice there is a requirement for consultation and for the setting up of joint consultative bodies. Here the Government must move one step further forward. The code has been adhered to by many employers but now we must legislate for joint consultation at factory level. That means that works councils representing the entire employee force must be statutorily required in factories above a certain size. Of course they must have meaningful agendas and must be able to deal with some commercial matters.
This is an enormous subject and I must not trespass too far on the time of the House. However, employees have rights comparable with, if not identical to, those of shareholders. Those rights stem from the fact that, like the shareholders, the employees draw their income from the company. The logic of this is that they should have some say in the choice of management which is to contribute so much to that income. If profit-sharing schemes are introduced, a matter which I do not believe we can legislate for but which businesses should be encouraged to introduce where practical, the employees have a further need to be involved in management selection.
I am not sold on the idea of two-tier or supervisory boards, but they are one vehicle on which employees can practise this say in the choice of management. However, we must move very slowly towards that point. Reform is essentially the responsibility of management and it


must work up from plant level. What I have said obviously concerns industry at large, but if applied in the motor car industry it would make a positive contribution towards resolving the sort of problems which exist there.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on the speech with which he opened the debate. I thought it was a brilliant and provocative speech which was packed with meaning. I also congratulate him on his choice of subject. The House should debate industrial relations more often. It becomes a more meaningful debate if we discuss a particular industry, particularly, as in this case, where hon. Members who take part have a knowledge of that industry in their own constituencies and make the kind of speeches to which we have listened this afternoon.
It is also rather an unusual situation in that a great deal of the debate has inevitably been concerned with the Chrysler dispute. We seldom debate specific disputes, and if we do it is usually at the height of a crisis, as with the docks dispute last summer. Here we have an opportunity to debate a dispute in a kind of inquest situation just after it has ended, something we rarely, if ever, have done in my experience. This is particularly valuable. It is absolutely right that we should pass judgment on it and try to derive lessons from it.
I completely share the strong criticisms that have been made of the Chrysler management's handling of the dispute in the past few weeks. I hope that I can be acquitted of the general charge that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) threw at the Opposition—and I think that the whole Opposition can be acquitted of it—that we inevitably attack management and take the side of trade unions in these matters. I have gone on record sometimes as criticising trade unions in dispute, and no doubt I shall do so again. All hon. Members have a duty to take a view of such situations, to be objective about them.
Of course, we are all influenced by our background, and I am influenced by my background as a trade unionist. But we

have a duty to the country to examine a situation of the kind we are debating and try to assess what went wrong.
There is an almost unanimous verdict that the management's handling of the dispute was clumsy and damaging. The dispute cost the company about £10 million-;worth of production of a highly successful car and, I understand, cost the workers involved an average of £150 each, at a time of the year when no doubt many of them were planning family holidays. Therefore, it was a tragic set of circumstances for everyone involved, and a loss to the country. Above all, it was unnecessary.
I should like to comment on the conduct of management, without going through the detailed sequence of events which has already been discussed. The extraordinary sequence of events just before the Spring Bank Holiday leads inevitably to the conclusion that the managing director or someone in authority in Britain or in Detroit, or both, had made a decision to look for an opportunity for a confrontation in the plant. I do not think that the events of the two days before the Spring Bank Holiday can be explained simply in terms of a series of ad hoc blunders. The evidence points to a decision made beforehand to seek an excuse for confrontation, and someone thought that he had the excuse during those two days.

Mr. Adam Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very serious allegation about the company. Has he any evidence for it?

Mr. Prentice: It is a serious allegation, and it is meant to be a serious allegation. This is a serious debate dealing with a serious matter, a dispute which was very costly to the company, to the men concerned and to the community. Therefore, we must tackle it seriously. I am making a serious allegation on the grounds that I cannot otherwise explain the sequence of events whereby material was put on to the assembly line during that day which was certified by foremen to be unsuitable—evidence of this has been printed in Conservative newspapers—after which the slip to that effect was torn off by higher management so that the material went through and the cars were then rejected.
I cannot understand that, except on the basis that there was a deliberate decision earlier to seek a confrontation. If the company has some other explanation, it owes that explanation to the country, because we are entitled to hear from it what went wrong. The welfare of the country is tied up with the efficiency of its large employers, and there is a degree of public accountability here on which we should insist.
The second point is that the policy of mass punishment of groups of workers is grossly unfair and is bound to be self-defeating in a modern society, with all the resentment which inevitably flows from it. To punish a whole group of workers for the alleged shoddy work of some is, of course, unjust and will, of course, provoke the reaction which it did provoke. One of the Chrysler management is quoted as saying that he thinks 75 per cent. of the workers on that assembly line on that day were guilty of shoddy work. I do not accept the 75 per cent. But even if I did it would still be wrong to penalise 100 per cent. of the workers on that line because of the shoddy work of 75 per cent. That, too, is something which stands to be condemned and should be condemned.
Thirdly, it was totally wrong of the company to say after the strike had been called that it would not meet the union at any level until there had been a return to work. Such an attitude of mind may have been fashionable a generation ago. It is no longer in tune with the realities of industry in this country, and I am very glad that it is not. Any company that pursues that policy is getting itself out on to a limb from which it is bound to retreat, as Chrysler has had to retreat.
On top of that, there was a series of cowboy-and-Indian tactics, which has already been referred to. There were the threatening letter about the possibility of no further investment in this country; the photographing of the picket lines, which was bound to be regarded by the men concerned as the accumulation of evidence for future victimisation, whatever other explanation was made at the time; and the hiring of the tough characters to break through into the engine plant at two o'clock in the morning.
Each of those decisions was bound to be self-defeating from the company's point of view. Experienced managers should have known that. They should have known that they would harden the attitude of the men. That was inevitable. Indeed, they should have realised that they were heading for a situation in which they would have to capitulate completely, a situation in which all possibility of compromise was being wiped out by their own actions. That is what has happened.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to express himself on these matters on behalf of the Government. We have this opportunity given us by my hon. Friend to debate the matter at an opportune time. I should like to hear from the Government rather more than we have heard from them in the past few weeks. We have heard very little. They should tell Chrysler that we welcome its investment in this country, as we welcome all investment from the United States, but that we expect it to take an intelligent and up-to-date view of industrial relations and not pursue wrecking tactics of the kind we have seen in the past few weeks.
I should like to add just three other footnotes to the dispute. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) said, it is just one more example of the complete irrelevance of the Industrial Relations Act. I do not think that throughout the dispute there was any serious suggestion from any quarter that any section of the Act should be used by anyone in connection with the dispute.
Secondly, we should pay a tribute to the Lord Mayor of Coventry for the considerable efforts he made towards bringing the dispute to an end, which are in line with the tradition established by the Coventry City Council under its Labour majority over some years. It has been much more actively involved in the economic life of the city than most local authorities are; it has been involved to great effect. Its efforts to end the dispute were in the best of that tradition, and a tribute should go to the Lord Mayor and other members of the authority for the part they played. The active rôle of the Lord Mayor was in contrast to the lack of activity from the Government in the dispute.
I next refer to what I hope will be the hopeful clause in the agreement which


was made a few days ago. It seems that both sides are recognising a joint responsibility to avoid a repetition of the events which occurred before the Spring Bank Holiday. There is recognition of the need to improve arrangements on the assembly line and to ensure that supervision of quality, and other aspects of supervision, are sensibly arranged.
I am sure that the study made in the plant by full-time trade union officials will be of great help and relevance provided that the management is prepared to make use of it. The details of the report are confidential, but I understand that it includes a great deal about supervision and quality control and that it provides the basis on which these matters can be sensibly improved.
Throughout the summer we have had what inevitably has been described in the Press as a long, hot summer in the motor industry. Most of the leading companies have been involved in disputes to a greater or lesser extent in the last few months. Some of those disputes did not develop to the stage which was once feared. I refer, for example, to the Ford Motor Company and what might have been a prolonged strike about pay. It would, in effect, have been a strike against Government pay policy. Such a strike was avoided and personally I am glad that it was able to be avoided.
Some disputes have been worse than they need have been. Whatever merits there were in the case of the plant attendants at Cowley who were on strike, it is difficult for the outside observer to understand why terms were rejected on 13th June which were accepted on 20th June, thereby prolonging for a week the unemployment of 12,000 of their fellow-workers.
I do not want to go into the Perkins engine dispute. I have a feeling that the least said about that today the better. However, I respect the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The National Joint Council of Massey-Ferguson is meeting tomorrow. We all express the hope that a formula might be produced which will lead to a return to work.
There may be, as sometimes happens after the unhappy events of recent weeks, a more peaceful period. I do not know whether that will be so. Sometimes such

a change takes place because of a change of mood on both sides in an industry which has been subject to conflict. I express the hope that the moderate elements on both sides will prevail in the difficulties which remain.
During the debate we are bound to challenge the whole industry to do more about the basic problems to which reference has been made. We are bound to challenge the Government to define their own rôle in relation to those difficulties. The motion speaks of an inquiry. There may be need for an inquiry and I support the motion in that respect. However, I have the feeling that a generalised inquiry, to be long-winded, could lead to the postponement of action rather than the identification more quickly of sectors in which there should be early action.
It seems that the industry badly needs some kind of fire brigade operation to try to sort out problems which involve an industrial dispute. There is a need for the reactivation of the Motor Industry Joint Council. For a period the story of the council was a success story. I refer particularly to 1965–68 when the council was under the chairmanship of Sir Jack Scamp. At that time it had a chairman of great energy and ability. He was a man who was respected by both sides of the industry as being capable of taking a genuinely independent and objective view of all situations. He was a man who was not afraid to tread on the corns of management or unions and who could be relied upon to work constructively for a settlement. With him on the council during that period were six leading figures from each side of the industry. The council would not have succeeded unless they had been leading figures.
During 1965–68 the council dealt with 17 major industrial disputes. In each of those disputes, when it was asked to intervene, the council conducted an inquiry on the spot in the plant where the dispute was taking place. Such an inquiry took place generally within 24 hours of the council being asked to intervene, but always within 48 hours. In 15 out of the 17 disputes there was a resumption of work as soon as the court of inquiry arrived in the plant and before it made recommendations. That was a tribute to the respect which was held for the council at that time.
During the period to which I have referred the number of days lost in disputes was reduced by a half compared with the preceding three years. Since then the council has not been so active. I understand that it has not met for several years although it still exists on paper. The industry should be asked to reactivate the council. The Secretary of State should assist, if he can, to find a chairman of the calibre of Sir Jack Scamp who would be able to do the job.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the nature of the work in the motor industry and the monotony of the assembly line. We are entitled to look to the industry—I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler)—at least to show some signs of active study and the taking of steps towards change. The hon. Member for Bosworth referred to the new plant which is being constructed by Volvo and the calculations which have been made about the difference which the plant would make in terms of cost. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the calculation of an extra 10 per cent. on unit costs could well turn out to be a saving if it produced the improvement in labour relations which many people claim for it.
The difficulty has been described that throughout the industry generally, and particularly with the set-up of producing cars, as are most companies, with a sharper degree of competition than the Volvo Company faces, it is difficult to begin to experiment. The pressures all the time are to keep the assembly line going and, if possible, to speed up the line and to find ways of reducing costs fractionally. The whole atmosphere of the industry, and many other industries with assembly line production, is against experimentation. Yet there must be a movement and we must consider what the Government should do to promote that movement. I was glad to see the announcement a few days ago, which was made by the Secretary of State, that the right hon. Gentleman has appointed a tripartite steering group to promote research into problems of job satisfaction. I am sure that that is absolutely right.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House something about the resources that will be at the disposal of

the steering group. It seems that the group will have a big job which must be done on an adequate scale. There is a need for a number of experiments to be launched as quickly as is practical, including experiments in the motor industry as well as many other industries.
We seem to be in a situation in which everyone is talking about the problems but in which few real experiments take place. Some companies—for example, Volvo, Olivetti and Saab and one or two other industries—are moving away from assembly line production. For the reasons which I have indicated there is a great danger that the process will be one of too little and too late whereas throughout the industrial world that movement is seen as a matter of great urgency. It may be that there will be a call for more Government intervention. We may be moving towards a period when Government intervention in industry will not be confined only to the traditional objectives of Government economic policy, but will include human problems.
This debate will have served a purpose if it has helped to stimulate further thought along the lines which I have mentioned. We are talking about problems which go well beyond one industry or country. We are talking about the possibility of human dignity in the conditions of a modern industrial society.

5.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): This has been a short but important debate and highly topical. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on initiating it. The motor car industry is very important to employment and to the whole of our domestic economy, as well as to our overseas trading position through its exports.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) pointed out, industrial relations is a very important subject to an industry, perhaps especially so to the motor industry, in which there are peculiar difficulties owing to size, complexity, competitiveness and the interdependence of the whole industry, so that trouble in one part can easily spread to another. The industry is also, as I have said, very critical to our export performance because of the effects on quality,


which obviously suffers from bad industrial relations, bad management and bad union practices and delay in the production of spare parts, all of which factors determine our share of the world market.
Now, when the industry looks to be set fair for a sustained expansion and increasing output, a number of disputes have occurred which in total have led to a substantial loss of production and of earnings for many thousands of workers in the industry. Perhaps it is a mistake to try to draw general conclusions from any particular dispute in the industry. As has been pointed out, conditions vary throughout the industry.
It is also wrong to assume that there has over the last few months been any sudden or serious deterioration. I do not think one can draw that conclusion from the debate or from the facts. What has been happening is shown both by the figures of stoppages due to strikes and by the figures showing the import penetration of foreign cars into the domestic market as well as for the export performances of British manufactured cars, whether made by American-owned or British-owned companies.
I begin by looking at some of the facts and figures in relation to the markets reached by British cars made by American-owned companies. The marketing policy of the American-owned companies is to supply all markets which are profitable and in which they can establish a worthwhile demand. It is a matter of deep regret that the United States is not included in this definition for cars sold from this country, largely due to delivery delays and poor quality. One has to face the fact that this criticism is being made of British cars in many of the wealthy markets.
Over a fairly long span of recent years, the export proportion of Chrysler's total turnover was higher than the average in this country. The Ford proportion was well up to average and often on a greater scale than the average. Latterly, however, the history has not been so happy. In the United States, Chrysler's sales of the Cricket—a version of the Avenger—were halved in 1971–72, whereas the Japanese-made Colt, its equivalent, had expanded sales. This was due to customer preference in the United States. In the case of Ford, and also because of customer

preference, all the Capris imported into the United States in 1970 came from Germany. With General Motors, Vauxhall was replaced by Opel first in the United States and then in Canada because of consumer dissatisfaction.

Mr. Carter: It would be difficult to sustain the right hon. Gentleman's argument that products made in this country by American-owned companies are not at the level of exports they should be simply because of quality. He would appear to be supporting the views of the Chrysler management. It is a matter of history that British Leyland, while not making up half of the car manufacturing capacity in this country, has consistently since the war exported between 50 and 60 per cent. of the total British motor exports. It would seem, therefore, judging by the last 20 to 25 years, that the right hon. Gentleman's argument cannot be supported.

Mr. Macmillan: I shall come to British Leyland. I would not dare not do so with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield in his place. Figures show that British Leyland's exports over recent years have been sustained far better. Triumph sales have risen from 15,000-plus in 1970 to 20,000; Austin sales dropped from 14,000 to 9,000; Jaguar sales dropped from 6,700 to 4,800.
British Leyland has kept up very well. All I am saying is that despite the record of both Ford and Chrysler in generally exporting a high proportion of their total turnover over the last few years, in more recent years there has been a decline of sales, particularly in the United States and Canada, of British cars by American-owned companies, and the reason given is customer dissatisfaction with both standards and delivery dates.
There is no particular policy among the American-owned companies to guide their markets one way or the other, contrary to what has been alleged. Their policy—and it applies to this country as much as to their German companies—is to sell cars, wherever they are made, where they can find a ready and profitable market.
I refer to another allegation made specifically about the Chrysler organisation in the debate. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) was guilty of gross exaggeration in his


approach to this problem. It was alleged that it was the American management or the American end of the management which was responsible both for the type of industrial relations and, indeed, for the alleged threat contained in Mr. Hunt's letter to the employees. The letter was sent to all employees and said that he had no intention of recommending or approving further capital investment until the present trouble was resolved or production was resumed.
I do not know whether this was provocative or not. I do say that it was nothing to do with a deliberately-inspired controntation originating from Detroit. I have been personally assured that in these last few months the United Kingdom management alone has been responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the company in this country and has handled all industrial relations.
I am assured that the dispute was not of the company's making and nor was the position of the company in any way determined by Chrysler in Detroit. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) that the managing director's letter involves no threat whatever to the present level of the company's activities in this country at any of its plants.
One must admit that, whatever the causes of the recent industrial unrest, the loss of production and the failure to abide by agreements can hardly be taken by any management as a satisfactory basis for further commitment of large, future investment. In the first quarter of this year the company claimed to have lost, before the strike, 4,000 vehicles and £2·7 million in revenue because of disputes at Ryton alone. For the last six months the company claimed to have lost 17 per cent. of scheduled production at all its plants because of internal disputes and 25,000 vehicles as a result of industrial action generally.
The hon. Member for Rugby referred to this indirectly when he spoke of the great effort made by unions and management to deal with the situation. I think that was recognised in the letter written by the industrial relations director to the workpeople. The situation is that, apart from these figures which I have given to the House, there is a question of the penetration of foreign cars to this coun-

try. We have to face the fact that in 1969 imports of cars accounted for 10·3 per cent. of the market. In successive years this percentage has risen to 14·1 per cent., 19·1 per cent., and in 1972 the last available figure showed that it was 23·2 per cent.

Mr. Tom King: Is there not a danger in reading too much into the import figures? Is there any country in the world in which the import percentage has dropped in that period?

Mr. Macmillan: I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. One should not read too much into this. There may be a question of consumer choice, people wanting something different. It may be a question of certain cars being more suitable to a particular market. One has to match that with the export figures. These have dropped rather considerably in the past year for cars and commercial vehicles. In part, this has been made up by the better performance of motor cycles and parts, which is no small section of the industry, and accessories.

Mr. William Price: I agree that the figure of 23 per cent. is high. I understand that this year it is running at 26·72 per cent. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure in France for the same period was 21 per cent., in Germany 25 per cent. and in Italy 28 per cent.? It seems strange that any Englishman who buys a foreign motor car should be thought to be some sort of traitor, whereas any foreigner who buys one of our cars is a delight. It does not add up. We all have the same problem.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I do not think we ought to ignore the message here. In the first quarter of this year, as compared with the same period last year, our exports have risen 23 per cent. That is very good. At the same time the imports of foreign cars have risen 48 per cent. That is not so good. While I do not want to read too much into that, it is a message we ignore at our peril.

Mr. Macmillan: I agree. I do not want to read too much into this. It has to be taken into account in a debate of this sort.
I do not want to weary the House with the stoppages that have taken place this year and the difficulties which the industry is facing. This came out well enough in


the debate. It is only fair to remind the House that many strikes are of short duration, of two or three days, and affect a relatively small number of people. As the hon. Member for Rugby pointed out, even a small stoppage in this industry can have a damaging effect. The strike of 77 plant operators at the Cowley assembly plant, an unofficial strike on a grading claim, led to the laying-off of 12,000 other workers and halted all production for three weeks. It began on 1st June, the national officers reached agreement with the company by 13th June and there was another week's delay before their recommendation was accepted on the shop floor. We have to recognise, too, that many of our major assemblers are vulnerable to interruptions of supplies, to stoppages in component manufacture, and in the services given to them by such organisations as the road hauliers.
A great deal was said about the problems of the assembly line. I do not want to deny or belittle those but we must recognise that an analysis of the reasons for many stoppages in this industry shows that many disputes arise which have nothing to do with assembly line work. It may be that there is a spill-over of discontent. For the record, I say that there are many disputes which have no apparent or direct connection with difficulties on the assembly line.
It is important to recognise that, because at the moment the connection between poor industrial relations and lack of job satisfaction is being much publicised in the Press and elsewhere. We must recognise that this is not the sole cause of the difficulties. It is undoubtedly a considerable one. We saw it last year for example in the Lordstown dispute involving General Motors in the United States and we have seen the serious attempts being made in Sweden by Saab and Volvo. All I wanted to say is that, whatever work is done on job satisfaction, it will not be a panacea for solving overnight all the difficulties of the motor-car industry.
It is, particularly with this industry, rather easy to over-simplify and perhaps wish to forget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth reminded us, that the problems of assembly line working exist in other industries. I am certain that we all need to be concerned, and the House has properly shown its concern

this afternoon, about the problems of monotony and frustration in industry.
This is primarily a matter for the management and the unions concerned. Where jobs are quite clearly seen to affect the attitude of life and work of the people who do them, where they can be seen—and the evidence is in the absentee figures, the labour turnover figures and the dispute figures—to reduce people's self-esteem and weaken and frustrate their sense of responsibility, it is very much the rôle of management and unions to study how they can make changes so as to produce better working conditions.
I will not pretend that these are not extremely complex problems or that there is a set pattern of solutions which can be applied in every industry or every part of the same industry. The differences are such, both between different jobs and different occupations and between the different people doing them, as to require individual solutions. The Government are taking account of this. We have set up a tripartite steering group under the chairmanship of the Minister of State to study what can be done.
I am anxious that this should be a practical steering group, conducting experiments and getting things started. I cannot tell the House what resources will be devoted to it because this is largely a matter which will have to be discussed by the group at its first meeting. It depends very much on what the various management and unions concerned think can be done in a practical way in different industries. For a proper approach across our industrial scene it is important to get the maximum amount of information as quickly as possible. It is necessary to have this tripartite approach to get the involvement of the unions and management under the guidance of a Government-chaired steering group and to be able to bring in the research and other resources of my Department.
I have already suggested at the Council of Ministers that this is a matter very much for Community involvement and for further work on a Community basis. Obviously this is not something that this country can do sensibly in isolation. Admittedly the problems in Europe are not absolutely the same. In some European countries problems are caused by the use of migrant labour. Broadly speaking, this work is not now being


done by indigenous labour. This is a realm of social policy which we are committed by the summit communique to deal with on a European basis and probably, because of the pressures of competition, on an international basis. As I said, this is a matter for unions and management.
I turn now to the general question of industrial relations. To be successful, any changes that are introduced to increase job satisfaction, must be founded upon a relationship between management and unions which enables them together to identify and solve the problems with which they are both concerned. This requires mutual trust and a recognition by both sides of their mutual interdependence. When that trust does not exist, the first priority must be to build it up. Therefore, an increase in job satisfaction is likely to be a continuous process dependent upon improving industrial relations generally.
Recent events have shown the need within the motor car industry for a more coherent and sensible pattern of industrial relations, not only for job satisfaction but for the running of the industry, the maintenance of full employment and the successful development of the industry. Considerable efforts have been made in recent years by employers and trade unions to avoid potentially damaging disputes and to seek their early resolution when they cannot be avoided. These efforts have been made not only in the BLMC organisation or at Longbridge but by the industry generally.
Central to this is the joint progress that has been made to more rational pay structures. The reform of payment systems in the industry by agreement—and this is still continuing—is leading to the removal of many potential dispute issues and providing much greater stability of earnings. Progress has not always been easy. Fundamental changes in payment systems have not always been achieved without conflict. Nevertheless, employers and unions have been able to reach agreement over much of the industry, and this offers a greater degree of certainty for the future.
I note what my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth and Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) suggested in relation

to the policies to follow stage 2. That is a matter which is being discussed with the TUC and the CBI.
The industry has significantly increased the management resources devoted to personnel and industrial relations matters and—perhaps even more important—in recent years industrial relations has been increasingly recognised by companies as having a crucial rôle throughout the enterprise, including the recognition of the importance of industrial relations at the very top. A great deal of attention has also been given to procedural arrangements. For example, British Leyland concluded a new agreement last year for the resolution of disputes and the avoidance of industrial action.
The typical strike in the motor industry still takes place without notice and often without the knowledge of full-time trade union officers, despite jointly agreed arrangements for dealing with such issues, and strikes often persist, unfortunately, despite the efforts of full-time trade union officials. This was indeed the case with Perkins.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) that the Perkins dispute is not about the current pay offer for a new annual settlement. This has proved acceptable to the unions. The dispute is about a commitment to parity of earnings in the longer term. My Department has been closely in touch with the company and the unions, and we were able to set up a meeting on 16th June. Unfortunately we were unable to get an agreed solution between the parties, but we arranged a working party to look into the whole question. What lay at issue between the two sides were the terms of reference of the working party. To try to resolve that issue we had a further meeting on Thursday 21st June. The union official was able to recommend agreed proposals to the shop stewards as providing a settlement, but they were unacceptable to the stewards. The dispute therefore continues. The conciliation services of my Department are readily available to the parties if some new basis for discussion can be found.
This difference is not a pay problem, nor a low pay problem. The earnings of workers at the Peterborough plant average between £41 and £42 and the current offer would provide earnings of £38


to £48 a week. The company has made it clear that it accepts that regional wage differentials will not remain fixed and that it cannot here and now commit itself in future to give parity at one place to match the outcome of wage negotiations hitherto unresolved and unsettled at another place. The company added that the unions cannot undertake to do that either.
The problem is confused by claims made by the shop stewards that three of the company's other plants will expect to benefit from anything agreed at Peterborough, and the claim by the shop stewards at the Coventry plant that they will be seeking to preserve their differentials. I am hopeful that these difficult problems may be resolved when the Massey-Ferguson NJC meets tomorrow and, in view of that meeting, I would rather say no more about it.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for his kind tribute to the work of my officers in the Perkins dispute. The hon. Member for Rugby and the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), on the other hand, criticised me and the Department for our non-intervention in the Chrysler dispute. The hon. Member for Binningham, Northfield showed a little more appreciation of the difficulties. The processes of conciliation and inquiry can be successful only when there is some possibility of a meeting point being found between the parties in dispute. It is always a matter of fairly fine judgment to know when intervention is likely to be acceptable and useful or likely to prompt a settlement or return to work.
Our judgment in the Chrysler dispute was that that point was not reached at any stage before the company and initially the shop stewards and later the full-time district officers of the unions concerned found a basis for direct discussion. Despite many public utterances and what we all read in the newspapers, the company and the unions were in contact for some time before a settlement was reached. Therefore, I do not think that any approach by my Department would have got us anywhere until such time as the meeting had already virtually been set up.

Mr. William Price: The curious thing about that argument is that it was an

intervention not by the Minister but by the Lord Mayor of Coventry that brought the two sides together. That led me to believe that management and men were willing to talk.

Mr. Macmillan: That came after the initial contact between the unions. In the light of my knowledge of what was going on, an intervention did not seem to be necessary. At that stage I do not think that we would have been able to add to anything that was done and at a later stage do not think that it would have worked.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North gave an account of some aspects of the dispute and suggested that I should make the Government position clear. I do not think there is very much to make clear about the Government's position. The strike of 4,500 production workers at Ryton began on 31st May. Initially it was over a claim that 600 workers in the body in white shop should be paid for an hour and a half lost when the management stopped the assemply line on day shift on 24th May. Central to the dispute was the poor quality of work produced during this shift and there was no difference of view between management and union that the standard of work was unacceptable.
The difference is over whether it was due solely to management, poor work by the labour force or poor materials. The company has admitted that there was a shortage of labour on the line and reduced the speed of the track to match the number of workers. The company has denied faulty or substandard panels, as alleged by the shop stewards. It will be difficult to find out the exact rights and wrongs of the dispute, but, whatever the reason, the shop itself became congested with faulty bodies and management took the view that production could not continue.
When charges are made that this was a deliberately sought confrontation by the management—and I see no evidence of this whatever—the House must reflect on the fact that the night shift which followed immediately the day shift where a stoppage took place worked quite normally and the quality was satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth referred to holiday pay. This


at one stage was part of the disagreement. The company's agreements with unions provide that holiday pay is paid only for a holiday where employees attend for work on the day before the holiday and a day immediately after the holiday. It was in conformity with this agreement that holiday pay was withheld from some employees at Ryton.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the company's refusal to negotiate before a return to work. He commented on the propriety and wisdom of such a course. The strike was unconstitutional under the agreement as well as unofficial. The joint procedure agreement which the company has with the unions provides for negotiations at various levels on any issue or grievance before industrial action is taken.
On many occasions in the past—there have been 42 strikes at Ryton this year—the company has negotiated even though the agreement has not been observed. On this occasion at the beginning it said it would not. Despite the insistence that there should be a return to work, discussions took place on 15th June between the company and senior stewards on the basis of which a return to work might be agreed and the issues resolved. These discussions, which lasted 10 hours, failed to reach a solution. A further meeting took place on 20th June which involved full-time district officials, and after many hours' negotiation the company made a number of proposals for settlement. These included payment of all holiday pay claimed, agreement to negotiate new special procedure agreements to deal with similar situations in future, and an agreement to pay for the week in question to all employees not directly involved in the dispute and to 250 workers on the shift who were regarded as being responsible for the incidents. For the remaining 350 workers on the same shift the company offered to pay them the guarantee subject to the joint agreement being operated over a three-month period. These proposals were not acceptable to the union. It insisted that the guarantee should be paid to all workers on the shift immediately. On this basis agreement was reached on Friday and a return to work at Ryton began this morning and full production will be planned by tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North made some rather scathing remarks about strike-breaking methods. I repeat what I have already said, that such action taken during the dispute was taken as a result of a decision of the British management and not under any pressure from Detroit. I do not want to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks about these "wicked American strikebreaking methods" because, although he alleged violence, his allegation was almost irrelevant. If violence has been used it is illegal, and to the extent that these incidents involve allegations of criminal acts the police are already making the fullest possible inquiries and it would be wrong for me to comment on those allegations while inquiries are continuing and while consideration may be given to possible prosecution.
I am sure I speak for the House as a whole in condemning any incidents of violence wherever or whenever they have occurred, or whoever was responsible, pickets or otherwise. If violence did occur at Coventry it is to be deplored, as much as is any alleged harassment of pickets at Peterborough. These are matters where the law provides sanctions and must be enforced.

Mr. Prentice: On one point after another the Secretary of State keeps giving his reasons for not making any comment. Is he going to make no comment at all on the situation? We all know that in the last few weeks right-wing newspapers such as the Economist, the Daily Mail and others have condemned the handling of the dispute by the Chrysler management. It has been a costly and unnecessary dispute. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should make some comment on the crazy procedures which have allowed the situation to result in such an appalling waste of resources.

Mr. Macmillan: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, my comment is that this is not a dispute in which anybody can claim credit. If there were faults in the management, we must remember that the stoppage itself was unconstitutional and unofficial. We must also bear in mind that some £10 million worth of production has been lost and individual workers have lost up to £150 in wages, but I hope that the official


settlement will lead to an improvement in the general situation.
I know it has been said in the Press and elsewhere that the settlement was a climb-down by the management. To some extent that is true, but it is also a recognition of the danger of continuing in this sort of situation by both management and unions.
The final settlement includes what I hope will be important: a joint commitment to the quality of the product on which both the company and its employees are finally equally dependent; a joint commitment to negotiate a new procedure agreement to deal with any future eventuality of this kind; and a joint commitment to better maintain the observance of existing agreements. I hope that this is a happy augury for the future in establishing a greater degree of certainty for the employees and the management alike.
In the course of the debate we have heard a number of positive ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough appears to believe in compulsory arbitration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth believes in compulsory consultation. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North wants to reconstitute the Motor Industry Joint Council, including the sub-committee which would conduct inquiries into disputes or into the situation in any company with the agreement of both sides. The last time that these arrangements were used was in 1970. This is the industry's body. It is not a Government body. If we could find the right chairman, it may be that this is one way that this could be developed.
The hon. Member for Rugby wanted a full and general inquiry into the whole industry, a comprehensive study of industrial relations, and recommendations for improvement. I share the doubts expressed about this by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, though not about the need for some inquiry at different stages into different parts of the industry. Like the right hon. Gentleman I doubt whether it is possible in such a complicated, complex, interdependent and difficult industry to mount an enormous inquiry which would take a very long time to report and could, at the end of getting bogged down in detail, come up

with generalisations which would not necessarily be all that valuable in the circumstances.
One has to consider as many ways of improving the industry as possible. I should not rule out individual references to the CIR after full consultation with the unions and managements concerned. The CIR has already one from Rubery-Owen. One should not ignore the effects of what the industry generally is doing and I hope will continue to do. In turn the Government are trying to deal with job satisfaction nationally, in Europe and on an international basis at the ILO in Geneva. Similarly we are considering a deeper study of worker participation and the need to involve people more closely in matters affecting their working lives and the progress of their firms.
The ways in which various advances can be made, as has been recognised in speeches from both sides of the House, have to be discussed fully with managements and unions. But primarily they are matters for managements for discussion with unions rather than matters for legislation or other Government action.
Everything that has been said implies the recognition by both managements and unions that men and women are not parts of the machinery and cannot be treated as such, and equally that participation cannot be effected unless the participators are responsible and self-disciplined in their consultations.
In the various contributions to the debate from both sides, that is the lesson that this House asks the motor industry to learn. In return the industry is entitled to ask for greater understanding from this House.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I mean this as no disrespect to the Chair, but I cannot help wondering, since this is supposed to be a Private Members' debate, how it is that Front Bench speeches have been allowed to take one hour and five minutes of our time, especially when the Secretary of State has said nothing at all.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) said he did not think that the union was taking sufficient initiative or showing sufficient concern. That was the gist of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
However, the whole point of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), my hon. Friend for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and myself is that it is precisely because the union took the initiative in February that there was a full-scale investigation of industrial relations at the Ryton plant. To turn round, as Gilbert Hunt has done, and accuse the union of not showing a responsible attitude is to neglect the facts of the situation. It was as a result of union initiative in February that this very detailed investigation of amendments required in supervision, inspection and the duties of shop stewards was undertaken. It was the union which took the initiative and produced the report. I am bound to say that as a result of that union initiative the company has done precious little. Anyone going round the Ryton or Stoke plants and trying to trace the results of that investigation on the management's side will find it very difficult.
I do not feel that my constituents, many of whom work at the Ryton plant, need any of the apologists for their behaviour who have appeared in the national Press during the past fortnight. There have been a number of Press comments about monotony on the assembly line and about work on the "track" being arduous and tough. No one quarrels with those comments. However, this dispute is not about life on the track being tough or monotonous. It is about the management trying to introduce a completely new principle into an agreement which was not specified in that agreement without any consultation with the union.
If this was a dispute which could be traced directly to assembly line conditions, as one or two industrial correspondents have implied, it might be a different matter. But here we have a dispute which, if it followed the customary pattern, could be settled by calling in the union's district officer and settling it. Many of us cannot understand why it has not been settled in the time-honoured manner and why the company had to go to such lengths.
I remind hon. Members that the industrial relations director, Mr. Peter Griffiths, wrote to plant employees on 21st May congratulating them on their record in past weeks. Mr. Griffiths was referring to exactly the same period as

Mr. Gilbert Hunt in his letter of 5th June saying:
I feel it important to remind you of the appalling industrial record that the Ryton plant set during the first four months of this financial year.
If the industrial relations director and the present chairman of the company are talking about the same period in totally different terms, one has cause to wonder what kind of communications exist at the top in the company.
This dispute was especially regrettable in view of the fact that the union side was prepared to talk at any time. Successive attempts were made by union officials, shop stewards and convenors to get talks goings. Had it not been for the fact that the company was adamant in its refusal to talk, the dispute would have been settled very much more quickly.
We in Coventry are not used to all these tactics, including the possible use of helicopters to break pickets. We are not accustomed to tactics whereby spy cameras are employed to take photographs of those on picket lines outside factory gates. Certainly we are not used to tactics whereby some pretty thuggish characters are employed to cross picket lines. I hope that the Secretary of State will maintain contact with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask him about the characters of some of those who have been hired to break picket lines.
Some of those who are alleged to have crossed picket lines and who were paid by the company to do so are not the kind of people whom either the Home Secretary or myself would normally associate with peaceful picketing. We have had a great deal of emphasis from the Tory Party about the need for more peaceful and useful picketing. I can hardly call the employment of thugs to break picket lines for large sums peaceful picketing or conducive to peaceful picketing.
I wonder, too, about the record of the Assistant Chief Constable of the Warwickshire and Coventry force in taking part in talks with the company on whether the picket breaking tactics should take place. When the assistant chief constable gave a news conference in Coventry last Thursday he referred to talks which had taken place between the police and the company as to when the picket breaking should take place.
As those who were to break the picket lines were obviously being hired to do so, and as obviously they were outside transport contractors hired for the purpose, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Home Secretary exactly what was the rôle of the police in taking part in those discussions with the company. I have already written to the Home Secretary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to have a word with him.
The significant thing in this dispute was that all the Press and other media—even the Coventry Evening Telegraph, which we in Coventry cannot normally count upon to be sympathetic to trade union matters—roundly condemned the company for not participating in talks. Those of us who were involved in the background or intimately with the knowledge of the dispute could not think of a reason why the company was so adamant about refusing to talk. I repeat that this was the kind of dispute that would normally have been settled in the time-honoured tradition, by getting both sides round the table at short notice.
It is worth making some mention of the remarks made over the weekend by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Most of us do not normally attach much importance to some of the stuff with which the hon. Gentleman comes out. However, it is important to note that the hon. Gentleman said that Chrysler had capitulated to union pressure which would once more result in shoddy workmanship.
The 16 hours of talks which took place in Coventry at the beginning of last week and the talks which took place on Friday of last week—about 20 hours of negotiations—were all about quality of work. It is significant to note also, as the Secretary of State himself said, that a formula concerning the quality of work is enshrined in the agreement which was reached.
For the hon. Gentleman to come out, as he did in South Worcestershire over the weekend in one of those inevitable Press statements with the photograph on the television, with the statement that Chrysler's had capitulated once more to shoddy workmanship was a great travesty of the truth and ignored the formula which the company and the union, nego-

tiating in Coventry on Friday, produced. The negotiations about the quality of the work and the dispute over the quality of work were an essential feature of the bargain.
I differ from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North and for Rugby in their call for a national inquiry into the motor car industry. I know a fair number of people on both sides in this dispute in Coventry. I cannot think of anybody I have met over the past month who has been asking for such an inquiry.
If the Secretary of State cares to make his own inquiries on both sides, he will find it hard to discover anybody either on the union side or on the management side who wanted an inquiry, even when the dispute was at its height.
What is wanted is a little more understanding of the pressures which occur on the shop floor and in the rather complex chain of human relationships which works up from the line to the steward, to the convener, to the shop stewards' committee and ultimately to the bargaining table. It would be far more sensible if we could achieve a little more understanding of how that delicate chain of human relations works, instead of—on the one side —condemning shop stewards as unthinking, uncaring militants, or calling for a national inquiry.
Reference has been made also to the need to call in some of the previous members of the Motor Industry Joint Council. Although I do not wish to be derogatory about the excellent work done in the past by people like Sir Jack Scamp, I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the Secretary of State to realise that the whole essence about a settlement reached as the Chrysler settlement was reached is that, when the two parties are on the spot, if anything goes wrong with the agreement again, the parties can be quickly brought to the bargaining table.
As a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union I believe that tribute should be paid to the district secretary of that union at Coventry, Bill Lapworth, for the valuable rôle he played in these negotiations. The fact that he is on the spot and can be called to the table again if anything goes wrong with the agreement is a testimony to the


validity and lasting quality of agreements which can be reached between management and unions.
The one great pity about the result of all this is that precisely such an agreement was available to the company almost a month ago. If the company had agreed to go to the bargaining table almost a month ago, it could have had pretty well the same agreement; because the same week that the hour-and-a-half and the off-the-clock dispute was in essence the company was being offered by the union more or less the same terms.
Many people have been talking about the number of cars that are lost through strikes. Every time the clock stops or the track stops because of a strike there is a great outcry becaue of the number of cars lost.
I should like to hear something at some time, particularly from Conservative Members, about the number of cars which are lost because the components are not there to complete them or about the number of times that the track must stop because the management cannot get the components there in sufficient supply.
I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates that one of the effects of the transfer from a piece-work system to a measured day-work system is that, whereas, under the piece-work system, the workers themselves have an incentive to ensure that all the components come on to the track, with a measured day-work system the guarantee of continuity of components coming on to the track is entirely a management matter.
In quite a few car-making factories which are now operating systems of measured day work, the management does not seem to be capable of ensuring that components and supplies come on to the track in the right quantity. A typical comment from a typical shop steward in any car assembly line where measured day work operates is that he feels that he is being some kind of unpaid "progress chaser" for management. Because the management cannot ensure that the parts come on to the line in sufficient quality and quantity, often, though it is now a management responsibility, it is the union which must undertake the rôle.
There has been talk this afternoon about the quality of work. No names, no

pack drill, but anybody who knows anything about the Ryton plant will confirm that crosses tend to be put on panels and bodies by inspection because they are alleged to be damaged and then, when supervision comes along, the crosses are rubbed off again. This kind of thing is happening not only in the "body in white" section but in other sections.
In this connection it is worth remembering what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said about the management's overriding need, it would appear, to get as many cars as possible off the track. At the Ryton plant there seems to be every pressure to get at least 50 cars an hour off the track. This is the pressure under which the workers have been working recently.
I hope that the Secretary of State will try to keep the problem in perspective. Anybody who knows the Ryton plant will admit that there have been difficulties in industrial relations recently. That was why in February union district officials took the initiative and went round the plant and produced their own report. I only wish that this dispute and many others could have been solved more quickly in the time-honoured British tradition. Simply by getting the management to come to the table and to talk about these matters we could have had the same settlement a month ago as we achieved in Coventry last Friday.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I hope that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks. Time is very much against me. However, when he followed me on an earlier occasion he made some extremely derogatory and ill-informed remarks about firms in my constituency.
This is not so much a matter of requiring an inquiry into industrial relations in the motor industry as into industrial relations in certain areas of the country which include those parts where there are sections of the motor industry.
Just after lunch today I was discussing this matter with the United Kingdom chief executive of a multi-national company. He asked which constituency I represented. When I told him that I came from Bolton, he said "If only we had more land for our plant at Bolton we could expand it more than we can,


because industrial relations are so good in that town. Industrial relations in Bolton are good because the people are sensible." He was not talking about management or workers on the shop floor, but about the people. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) will confirm that, because, having elected us, they have proved it.
The job of the Chrysler Corporation is to make and sell motor cars. It has been doing neither for the last few weeks. I suggest that, from the public relations aspect that has emerged from this situation, its cars will be more difficult to sell because the public will not have confidence in the quality control. The whole matter has been concerned with quality control, and people are suggesting that they should look more carefully at the cars being produced by Chrysler. That is not in the interests of anybody in the Chrysler Corporation from the chairman of the United Kingdom board down to the most newly joined apprentice.
Therefore, I suggest it is time for me to repeat what I have been preaching for so long. We should get rid of the term "both sides of industry". That phrase is beloved by the Opposition, by trade union officials and by employers' federations. However, I hate it. It suggests that there are two people poles apart who should be working together. I like the phrase "social partners" which we get from the Common Market.
We should try to instil throughout industry that it is time to communicate from the boardroom to the shop floor, to talk regularly and, if necessary, to stop production while talks go on. I have suggested this to several personnel managers and directors of manufacturing companies in this country. If one mentions it to anybody in the motor industry, their response is "But that would mean having to stop the track." I suggest that it would be a good idea to stop the track for a quarter of an hour or half an hour every day whilst talks go on to avoid the stoppages that have been taking place.
The management of Chrysler has shown itself to be incredibly inept in the way that it has handled the dispute. It has cried "Wolf". It has said "Thus far, and no further." It has set itself up as an immovable object meeting an

irresistible force. Then it went further. After that it can hardly be credible as a management. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was the British management, not the American management. Fair enough. If the British management is like that, I suggest that someone else should be obtained who can do the job better.
There has been criticism of the track. It is suggested that the Common Market might be able to negotiate the track out of the motor industry. I suggest that it is a management problem to organise the factory, to get the best production at the best possible price from everybody, and that it can do that if everybody in the factory is happy and is getting job satisfaction. I do not believe that the present system of management in that sector of the motor industry is even approaching efficiency.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Terry Davis: I have a double interest in this matter. Before being elected to this House I worked for Chrysler as a manager, and I represent a constituency in which many people are employed at the Longbridge factory of British Leyland and many others work for smaller companies which supply the motor industry.
The Secretary of State failed to deal with some of the points which have been made by some of my hon. Friends. I refer particularly to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) about the multinationals. My hon. Friend was absolutely right. Part of the problem of the motor industry is a sense of remoteness. However, I think he strayed from the main point when he referred to foreign multinationals, because we have disputes in British Leyland, which is a British multinational. There is a sense of remoteness in British Leyland as in Chrysler, Ford and Vauxhall.
We have similar problems in other ways. British Leyland is opening or buying factories on the Continent of Europe. Its motives are to make profits for British Leyland. This is not necessarily in the interests of British people as a whole and certainly not necessarily in the interests of the employees of British Leyland. It is not concerned to increase the wages or the number of jobs for


British Leyland employees in this country. Indeed, it is aggravating one of the basic problems in the industry, which is a sense of insecurity. The motor industry has a history not only of lay-offs when there are disputes elsewhere in industry but of redundancies. When we add remoteness, the sense of insecurity and the boredom to which reference has already been made in the debate, it is not surprising that we get trouble.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to make the valid point that not everybody works on the assembly line. The track sets the tone for the industry. The problem is not the track itself, but the division of labour. There is intensive specialisation in the motor industry. The track makes it worse because it adds pace to the specialisation.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) contributed a great deal to the debate when he referred to job enrichment. The problem is how to get job satisfaction and enrichment. I doubt whether we can achieve it with the present emphasis on specialisation and making as much money as possible. The emphasis in the industry is on making as big a profit as possible, and this has its effect on management and employees.
Another aspect of the problem is the widespread suspicion held by people who work in the industry about the management. The Secretary of State said that he did not believe that the recent dispute at Chrysler arose because of ownership by the American corporation. He said that the decisions were being taken by the British management. The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point that many of the directors and executives of Chrysler (UK) are North Americans. There is no need for decisions to be taken in Detroit. The Americans are here taking the decisions. It is not simply blaming people for their nationality. In many ways, I prefer an efficient American to an incompetent Briton. One reason why Chrysler took over Rootes was its poor British management. The problem is that we have developed in this country, especially in the motor industry, the international executive. It is not that he holds a British or an American passport, but that he is here today and gone tomorrow—gone not to a different factory in the

United Kingdom, but to a different company in a different country, that different company belonging to the same multinational giant.
The feeling of insecurity, remoteness and boredom is aggravated for people in the motor industry by the fact that they cannot trust or depend on the managers being here tomorrow.

Mr. William Price: I wish to be helpful, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn

ICELANDIC FISHERIES

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) to move his motion.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I had intended to call attention to the Icelandic fishery dispute and to move:
That this House, appreciating the strategic importance of Iceland to NATO's maritime defence, and the relative insignificance of the Icelandic catch to the British economy, values Keflavik above the cod,
but in view of the time factor I shall not do so.

PARLIAMENTARY BUILDING

7.0 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That this House approves the construction of a new parliamentary building in due course.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be convenient if, with that, we take the next motion,
That this House approves the construction of the proposed new Spence and Webster parliamentary building in due course.
I have not selected the three amendments to the first motion. They are, first, in line 1, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'is not prepared to countenance the construction of a costly new parliamentary building until the question of providing additional accommodation by the conversion of existing buildings in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster has been more thoroughly investigated.'
Secondly, in line 1, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'declines to spend what will undoubtedly turn out to be £90,000,000 on itself, especially at a


time when it is itself stoking the fires of envy and malice with such loathsome effect in society at large; and more especially in view of the fact that the whole idea of this beehive of misdirected activity would be the antithesis of all that the House should be; and reaffirms its settled convictions that honourable Members want less rather than more of their work done on the rump and more rather than less done on the hoof; that the neglect of the Chamber and the Lobby indicates a rotten decadence in Parliamentary life; and that too many honourable Members suffer from too much rather than too little in the way of information, research, facilities and similar pretentious rubbish.'
Thirdly, in line 2 at end add:
'provided that it occupies the whole site from Bridge Street to the Ministry of Defence, is used for the House of Commons and all its necessary appurtenant accommodation—leaving the Palace of Westminster for the House of Lords and as a constitutional history museum—Spence and Webster being instructed accordingly.'
The terms of the business motion accepted by the House earlier today preclude me from selecting the amendments to the second motion. The first is in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford), in line 1, after construction ', insert 'with modifications'.
The second amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) in line 1 leave out from 'of' to end and add:
'a new Parliamentary Building to the design of the joint Third Prize Winner, entry No. 158 by Paffard Keatinge-Clay in due course.'

Mr. Prior: The House has three related reports of the Services Committee before it this evening. The first, last Session's Fifth Report, recommends that, subject to certain detailed modifications on such matters as height and building line, and further consideration of the security aspect, work should start as soon as possible on the construction of the new parliamentary building designed by Messrs. Spence and Webster which won the Commonwealth architectural competition.
Next there is the First Report of this Session's Services Committee which expresses the view that, irrespective of the decision on the proposed new parliamentary building, additional accommodation is urgently required to meet the needs of Members, their secretaries and the supporting services given by the

House; and that the Norman Shaw (North) building is suitable for that purpose.
Thirdly, and most recently, the Committee has reported, in its Fourth Report this Session, on the possible conversion to parliamentary use of the existing buildings on the Bridge Street site, other than the Norman Shaw (North) building, in the light of a feasibility study prepared by the Department of the Environment, and has come to the conclusion that the accommodation resulting would be uneconomical and would not meet Members' needs; and the Government accept that view.
The purpose of the two motions which I have tabled for debate this evening is to enable the House to consider whether, in the context of these reports, there is in principle a need for a new parliamentary building, and, if so, whether it should be the Spence-Webster design. I hope that by doing so I have met the general wishes of the House.
The first of the two motions accordingly deals with the broad issue of principle whether the House considers there is any need at all for a new parliamentary building.
I know that the view is strongly held by some hon. Members on both sides of the House that, however convenient in some ways further office accommodation for Members might be, it could threaten important corporate aspects of the work of the House. They see Members spending their time engaged on paper work in their individual offices and less time in and around the Chamber. That view is forcefully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Ire-monger) in his amendment, the second to the first motion. I do not see my hon. Friend in the Chamber now. Others may feel that, whatever design we adopt, its cost would outweight the benefits. Those who hold such views will no doubt vote against the first motion.
If the first motion is defeated, there would then seem little purpose in seeking a decision of the House on the particular design recommended by the Services Committee. If, however, the first motion is carried, the House will then want to come to a decision whether the new parliamentary building should be


that recommended by the Services Committee; in other words, the Spence-Webster design.
This is only a short debate. The general arguments for and against a new parliamentary building and, indeed, the Spence-Webster design, are familiar to the House and were debated at some length on the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) on 9th March. I do not, therefore, propose to take up the time of the House by going over the general ground again, but merely to emphasise certain aspects of the choices before the House on the latest information available and to give a brief indication of the Government's view. With the permission of the House, I should hope to wind up the debate very shortly at the end.
First, as to timing, in his statement of 21st May my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that in any event no public expenditure could be incurred on the proposed new parliamentary building during the present or the next financial year.
I think it necessary that I should also make it clear to the House that, if my right hon. Friend found it possible to provide finance for work to begin on a new parliamentary building in the year 1975–76 on the Bridge Street site, it would also be necessary before any substantial progress could be made to arrange for the alternative accommodation that is to be provided for the police now occupying Cannon Row Police Station to be built.
If the Norman Shaw (North) building is to be used, as proposed, for parliamentary purposes—I shall be saying a little more about that later in my speech —the police who might otherwise have used that building will have to be found satisfactory accommodation elsewhere in the vicinity. It is important to have them in the vicinity. This could take at least three years from the date on which the decision is taken—hence the importance of reaching a decision tonight. Time spent on going back to the drawing board if the House wanted to do that, or in waiting for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money, would not all be lost.
Secondly, I think that I should bring up to date the latest information that we

have about the costs of the proposed Spence-Webster building. The latest figures, based on 31st March 1973 prices, are that the overall cost of the building and all—and I emphasise all—its associated works, including a new Underground station approach and ticket office and the reaccommodation of the police at Cannon Row, would be slightly more than £33 million. The cost of the building itself would be £11 million. This new parliamentary building would accommodate 450 Members in single rooms, 450 secretaries and about 300 supporting staff of the House.
Next, with regard to the Norman Shaw (North) building, the Government accept the Services Committee's view that the House is in urgent need of further accommodation. Accordingly, and irrespective of the decision on a new parliamentary building, we are prepared to go ahead as soon as possible with the adaptation of this building if the House so wishes.
The date of occupation would depend to a great extent on what conditions are acceptable to Members. If they feel that it is essential to have better and faster lifts, I am advised that there will have to be some major structural alterations and that these would take until about the middle of next year to complete, and that even then the actual installations of the lifts would have to take place after occupation. If, however, Members are prepared to accept the building more or less as it stands with a minimum of most essential work and to make do indefinitely with the existing lifts and lavatories, I think that we could have the building ready for occupation very much sooner.
Having dealt with those particular points, I now come to the Government's position on the main issues. The first motion, in the Government's view, is that, as the public expenditure position allows, there is a genuine need for a new parliamentary building which will provide better working conditions for the staff of the House and Members' secretaries as well as for Members themselves.
The duties and responsibilities of Members, and what constituents expect of them, collectively and individually, have expanded greatly in recent years. By international standards, and by the standard of office accommodation generally


in this country, our working conditions here are indisputably poor, and I think that the rest of us should at least have the choice between the nineteenth century and modern facilities.
The Norman Shaw (North) building will, I believe, be of considerable help to Members. Its use will at least prevent most Members from having to share a room, either there or in the House itself, with one other or, exceptionally, two other Members. But it can be no real substitute in the long term for a purpose-built building: nor can it provide the improvements which we would like to see in the working conditions of those who serve the House and us. When I say "serve the House and us", I think that the most pressing need of all is to try to improve the conditions of our secretaries and others in the House.
As regards the Spence-Webster design, it would not, I think, be appropriate for the Government to express a collective view other than their willingness to be guided by the decision of the House. Everyone must, I think, make up his own mind about the look of the proposed building. Expert opinion, as in other fields, has been sharply divided—from The Times which described it as a superb building to the Daily Telegraph which described it as little short of calamitous. My personal view—it is no more than a personal view—is that the winning design meets the needs of the House and I favour it. But I am no judge of architecture, so I am not entering into an argument about the merits of the particular building.

Mr. Robert Mellish: Whatever building is put up, there will be objections.

Mr. Prior: I think that is absolutely true.
If the House objects to the motion on the Spence-Webster design, I see no reason why there should not be subsequent modifications—indeed, some have been suggested by the Services Committee—if these are considered necessary to meet user needs. In the interval before work is begun, it will be only natural for some adjustment to be necessary and I am therefore accepting the sense of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford). The Government's atti-

tude is that, as the public expenditure position allows, this matter is one for the House and not for the Government to decide.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I am grateful to the Labour Party for having asked me to occupy this position tonight. May I say, with all due modesty, that there is some justice in it? After all, I set up the competition. If I was in at the beginning—I will not say at the birth—I should be in at the consummation. But at least I am here, and I have had a long and continuing association with this matter.
I come by the site almost every morning. As I hold very strongly that with any work of art, whether music or architecture, one has to live with it for some time to find out whether one likes it, I can now say that the thing satisfies me, whatever other people may say. I speak with conviction, although I grant that others who have studied the matter for a long time, such as the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), also have strong views the other way. The hon. Member made a long disquisition when we discussed this matter on 9th March, but his views were concerned largely with the development of Parliament Square right out to Storey's Gate and a wider vista than merely the parliamentary building. The parliamentary building has to be the start.
I am glad that the House has turned up in some force tonight, but I must make it clear that I speak for myself on this matter; there is a free vote. However, it would often be far better to have three-line Whips on such matters as this than on some meaningless amendments to major Bills. On a matter like this, hon. Members should be here to stand up and be counted.
I have been associated over many years with the conditions of Members, both in my party and in the wider context of the House. There are many facilities here today which did not exist when I came. Some older Members might think that the modern Member was comparatively well looked after. There are hon. Members who continually complain about things in the House who when the time comes—on the Services Committee, on


Private Members Day on Friday or at Question Time—are notorious for their absence. I noticed the same tendency when I was in engineering: those who moaned most did not take much part in remedying a situation. Yet looking round the House tonight, I recognise many hon. Members on both sides who have had a continuing interest in this matter and to whom the vote tonight will be of great importance.
We use high-falutin' phrases like "the heart of the Commonwealth", and we should recognise that this kind of debate is a contribution to that concept. What we do tonight is important.
I must make it clear from the beginning that I support the new building. I agree with the assessors that it is a solution of outstanding merit. When the House rejected the Holford plan, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), as the responsible Minister, decided that there would be an inquiry to end all inquiries. As a result, the Martin-Buchanan proposals came before the House. I was the Minister who received that report, on which we have had many discussions.
In our previous debate, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that, instead of having a competition, we might have given this project to a distinguished private architect. In the complex of parliamentary buildings which was envisaged, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the parliamentary building, it was proposed to give one to a competition, another to a Ministry of Works architect, Mr. Eric Bedford, and the third to a private architect. So we met all ideologies. Both Eric Bedford and Mr. Denys Lasdun were made the assessors of the parliamentary building so that it would be known that there was largely a single mind working across the whole conception.
It was agreed that there should be a Commonwealth competition. The only dissident voice was that of the present Prime Minister, who thought that the competition should be completely international. But it was put to me that, probably in the centre of the Commonwealth, a Japanese architect, for example, would not have been very popular with the Australians.
This matter started eight years ago and, after a great deal of work and disappointment, we have the result of the competition. We should remember that 1,000 individuals and firms from all over the Commonwealth expressed interest in this and that 246 entries were received. The assessors invited seven to go forward and the final verdict was unanimous. I know that people can put down individual amendments objecting to certain parts of the competition, but the result represents a knowledgeable consensus.
It would be a devastating blow against the encouragement of young architects and the need to improve modern architecture if we lightly turned aside from all this work which has gone on at such expense and over such a long period. We should never all agree on a building even if there were another competition.
If the second motion is defeated, there could be another long-drawn-out process, taking eight years. Even modest works involving the roof space have been put back for two years, and if we put this matter back for another eight years, we might have one or two more intakes of Members like the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who thinks that the world of thought on this subject began when he arrived here. I think that he is convinced in his view, and he may be right, but he will not feel that the other people are right when the second intake from now arrives after another election. As is always the case, there can never be a unanimous feeling about this.
With inflation and a general escalation of costs, in eight years' time the cost of this new building will be astronomical. When the cost of Concorde was first conveyed to the Cabinet in 1964 there was a sum which we could have paid in compensation which seemed so outrageous that we thought that we had better get on with the thing. But it would have been cheap if we had got rid of it then. These costs will escalate.
There will never be unanimity of view. It was said by the mediæval clergy about Wren's St. Pauls. Coventry Cathedral was greeted with derision. No doubt the majority of people regard it with admiration. Tourists trek to it from all over the world.
The new building is, above all, functional. It provides 450 individual rooms


and provides for 450 secretaries. Once the building is erected, the modifications can come from the inside. What one does with the interior is largely flexible. Therefore, it is no use carping about this matter. We ought to imagine how the building will look in situ and whether it will be suitable.
I happen to agree with one of the Greater London Council's criticisms—though with not much else—that it would probably be better to put it further back to allow for another traffic lane. I hoped at one stage that Parliament would have a precinct of its own and that the bridge would be closed. I have spent long enough on town planning to remember the Abercrombie plan in 1945 and the missed opportunities and bungled undertakings. If our fathers had been a little more adventurous and visionary, we should be in a far better position today.
People have criticised this proposal. The Royal Fine Art Commission thinks that it is fairly good, but the GLC does not think very much of it. However, I cannot take my view of architecture from the GLC, especially when passing by Waterloo. Most hon. Members who know no different probably think that it is a multi-storey car park with which one is struck as one turns around the corner. It is a traffic hazard. One has to look around both sides of it. On one occasion I was looking so much to the right that I did not take due cognisance of the left, and a Mercedes slid in front of me and I slid into the back of that. I was insured, but I lost my no-claims bonus, so I speak feelingly.
When considering costs we should consider what that monstrosity will cost. I am told that the tender accepted was for £3,850,421. Hon. Members should go and look at it. It will be an eyesore. It will be an offence to London for ever. Why has the GLC done this? It has taken purely the utilitarian view that it can increase office accommodation on that site, but it could easily have weeded out some of its departments and taken them out of the area. It need not have approached the matter like that. That thing disfigures the approach to the House. It has a complete want of symmetry and a certain inconsistency. There is nothing beautiful about it. I hope that the GLC will not tell us how to plan the new parliamentary building.
The House ought to consider having a planning and amenities committee to plan the precincts of this place, by which I mean anything in view of the House. If we had had such a committee we might have avoided that terrible extension of St. Thomas's Hospital, which will cost about £22 million. I have heard all sorts of views about that. But nothing that we do tonight will be as bad as the extension of County Hall and St. Thomas's Hospital. No one in the House would have settled for those.
Hon. Members tend to venerate this place. Over the years it grows on us. For about 30 years it was an ambition of mine to come to the House. I became a Member far later than I should have liked, because of the war. I know some of the history of this place. Hon. Members take their constituents around Parliament. Whatever the newspapers may say, throughout history, as far back as the time of Samuel Pepys, most of the great writers have viewed this place with some derision. It may be said that the population view it with a degree of affectionate contempt. But whenever a real crisis occurs people say "Recall Parliament." Those of us who have struggled through many General Elections to become Members do not underrate our position here and how much responsibility rests upon us. Continuing generations of Members have felt the same.
Less will be said tonight than was said about Sir Charles Barry's building when he put that up. We now regard it as a hallowed building. We venerate it. Whenever anything is produced it is suggested that it was almost divinely inspired. The clock tower merely happens to be left because money ran out and there was no further vote. Yet that thing, standing on its own, is referred to as an act of genius. But Barry intended to bring the whole of the thing around New Palace Yard. We have lived with that for a very long time.
When Charles Barry was awarded first place in the competition it led to a lively newspaper war between the Goths and the Classicists, with those who felt that there should be no restrictions intervening. The anti-Goths continued their attacks after the award for Barry's design was announced. It is worth noting that the original design was very different from the building as executed. That says


something for modification. More unpleasant were the fierce personal attacks on Barry. When the award was announced he was subjected to a campaign of most bitter personal attack. Anonymous letters were published calling his style "highly ornamented and meretricious" and "dangerously artistic". No one has called the new proposal dangerously artistic. It was hinted that the judges were incompetent amateurs and that Barry owed his award to a personal friendship with the Chief Commissioners.
Even in relation to this proposal, the name of one of the architects being the same as that of another distinguished architect has also led to comment, although anyone who knows how the competition was run will know that it has nothing to do with that.
The disguntled defeated competitors held an exhibition of their rejected designs and petitioned Parliament to upset the award. I hope that we are more civilised nowadays.
Once the building was started, Barry had to deal with a succession of select committees and consultants. The notorious Dr. Reid was appointed to plan the ventilation of the building, with an authority independent of Barry's. He wanted one-third of the whole cubic capacity for flues, ducts and so on. The dispute between the two men ended only after an arbitrator was called in and reported in Barry's favour. Barry then had to contend with a Committee of Inquiry set up by the Lords—we have not yet had that—which was then overruled by a Committee of the House of Commons.
The Royal Fine Art Commission, under Prince Albert, advised on the decoration of the building. We have not brought in His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Barry also had to contend with criticisms from Members about the acoustics of the Chamber, and these forced him to lower the ceiling, thus ruining the proportions of the room. The final blow—I hope that this will not happen to us—must have been the long and sometimes acrimonious correspondence, extending over many years, with the Treasury over his pay. One of its ploys was not to answer his letters. It took four years for him to receive a reply to one. Times never change. Eventually he

Was forced to accept a lower percentage than was usual.
The current controversy has been proceeding for eight years, since I originally set up the competition. The Minister said that even if we agreed to the building which won the competition it could not be completed until the end of 1980. That was the position the last time we debated the matter. Now two years have been added on to that figure, and, therefore, we are thinking in terms of a completion 10 years from now. If we say "no" tonight we are probably saying goodbye to a new building on this scale in the lifetime of many of us. I had always hoped to live to see something more than a drawing on a board.
If we reject the proposal tonight there will have to be a new competition, new plans will have to be submitted and the arguments will all be repeated. A future General Election will bring in new Members and the whole process will never end. I have long believed that the House should be master of its own building and planning procedures. George V said in opening the County Hall building that a public authority meanly housed was a public authority meanly esteemed. There are many things about this place which are mean and contemptible. I happen to be one of those who are for going into Europe. This new project will be one of the complementary buildings which will maintain our place in Europe and to which statesmen might very well come from all over the world.
We need this building now as a symbol of the faith we have in the new era into which we are moving. The plans provide not only for accommodation for hon. Members but also for an open space. Hon. Members should consider the building from ground level and should think how it will appear when viewed along with Richmond Terrace. Then they will see the sort of vista of which this site is capable. Too many hon. Members judge it by what they saw on television and from merely from looking down on things. This facility is greatly needed in this area, which is an area as great as Leicester Square.
I do not wish to talk for long tonight [Interruption.] I do not speak as long or as often as some of my interrupters. The Leader of the House has fairly set


out the issues. We now have to pass the first motion. I do not think there is any doubt that we shall pass that because it merely says that we shall have a new building. The crunch comes when we have to decide that the building is the one which won the competition. I hope we shall decide in its favour. Some of the greatest assessors in the world have said that it is a building of outstanding merit. We have to look at many of the things that have been with us for a long time, things that we have come to know and to love. All we have to decide tonight is how the building will look in situ. I have tried to imagine it with the best judgment I can muster and I think that it will justify in the honest light of history all the claims that I make for it tonight.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Brian Batsford: I do not find it easy to follow the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) because he is such an authority on the subject. In my remarks I should like to take up what he said about competitions in general and some of his remarks about Barry. The mere fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tonight put down these two motions indicates that there are two sides to the matter, namely, whether we want a new parliamentary building and, if we do, whether we accept the winning design.
I do not intend to waste much time on the first motion because I have always thought that the accommodation and facilities provided for Members were totally inadequate. I have always believed that we needed a new building, new rooms and new facilities to cope with the pressure of work.
In many ways it is ludicrous an irrelevant to put down the first motion tonight. What have all those hundreds of architects, the Department of the Environment and even the Services Committee of this House been doing all these years if it had not been agreed that we need a new building on the Bridge Street site? As the right hon. Member for Leeds, West said, the House approved a building on the Bridge Street site on 20th January 1969. I believe that it was he or the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) who appointed the assessors in

the competition. Why is it that, long after the winning design has been selected, after a tremendous amount of work has been put into it, we are still now trying to decide whether the parliamentary building is necessary?
I come now to the second motion. I tried to put down an amendment to it but the amendment was not accepted. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has accepted the principle. He asks us in the motion either to accept or reject, as it stands, the winning design by Spence and Webster. We should be most careful tonight if we are to support or reject such an uncompromising motion. I wanted to insert the words "with modifications". The architects have already made modifications recommended by the Services Committee and I believe that it could recommend a lot more.
The design is the result of a competition. The system of architectural competitions has been acknowledged and accepted all over the world. It is not something we can lightly reject. We agreed on the system four years ago. A large number of famous buildings have been designed as a result of competitions. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West mentioned Coventry Cathedral. There was also the Anglican Cathedral at Liverpool which was designed by Gilbert Scott, whose son, Giles Gilbert Scott, designed the Chamber we are now in. Liverpool Cathedral when eventually built bore no resemblance to the original design which won the competition. Other buildings which have been designed in competitions are County Hall and the Royal Exchange, which was designed by Tite, who was at one time the Member for Bath in this House. There are others. The RIBA building was designed by Grey-Wornum as a result of a competition. Then, of course, there is this building. We all know of the argument and discussion about it, not only in Parliament and public but also in the architectural profession.
We have been reminded that 1,000 British and Commonwealth architects were interested in the competition for the new building. We have been reminded that 264 designs were considered by the well-known assessors and that seven, final designs were seen by hon. Members and a winning one was selected. That


was approved over a year ago by the Services Committee by a majority of 11 to 3 but it has taken all this time before we could debate the report.
If we reject the second motion tonight we shall be saying goodbye for ever to the design which won the competition. What is the alternative? If we commissioned an individual architect to do the work, I could visualise a lot of danger. I cannot see any leading architects accepting such a commission after what has happened and we had broken the whole principle of architectural competition.
If we voted against the motion after only a three-hour debate on a Monday evening—not, I am glad to say, in a sparsely attended House—it would be an insult to the architects, to the assessors, to the Royal Fine Art Commission and to everybody connected with the competition.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Barry. It is extraordinary how history repeats itself. On 4th February 1836 there was a debate in the House on the new parliamentary building. I should like to quote something which was said then, and which is one of the few things the right hon. Gentleman did not quote on the subject. I quote from Volume 3, page 2492 of the Mirror of Parliament, because there was not an official HANSARD then. Sir Robert Peel said:
If we consent to quash all the proceedings, my belief is that we should be striking a more fatal blow against the principle of competition and against the adjudication by impartial commissioners than has ever before been struck—we shall postpone the execution of the work for an indefinite period—we should injure the character of the profession.
We are in an identical position tonight. No doubt some hon. Members would like to see the architectural profession insulted.
Of course, examples of bad architecture exist all over London. I agree that there are some particularly obnoxious ones on the other side of the river. I do not accept at all the criticism of the Greater London Council about our new building when it accepted that frightful thing put up in the middle of the round-about over there.
Much of the indifferent building which exists and is being put up today is not the fault of the architects but results from the restrictions and regulations

under which so many of them have to work, restrictions imposed by local and national Government and the terrible rising costs which they must face.
I have always thought that architecture should be courageous; like all other arts it should be courageous. It took an enormous amount of courage for Gibb's great classical Radcliffe building to be put down in the centre of Gothic Oxford. It took even more courage for the vast edifice of which this Chamber forms a part to be built between St. James's Park and the river. Architecture should also reflect the age in which it is built.
It would be a negation of that courage if we were to put on the other side of Bridge Street an insignificant building, purposely innocuous so as not to offend Parliament Square. Parliament Square is a conglomeration of buildings. How it has ever managed to endure and suffer the Middlesex Guildhall all these years, I do not know. But far worse than the buildings around Parliament Square are the big things that go round it in the form of transport.
Hon. Members probably know that I am as much a conservationist or preservationist as anyone in the House. But I see no justification for trying to preserve that "polyglot" of buildings in Bridge Street. Still less do I see any justification for converting them at great expense to provide a temporary solution.
While we are talking about temporary solutions, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has ever considered the possibility of a ship. Why should not we buy a second-hand liner, take off the funnel, the mast and even the superstructure and float it up the Thames and anchor it outside Mr. Speaker's Steps? It would provide a great deal of accommodation for Members in the cabins and, in those famous words, "would go up and down with the tide".
The reason for my amendment was quite simple. I do not believe that we should abandon all the work that has been done. We were told by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there could be no expenditure on the building for two years. Could not we use those two years for a reassessment? We should remember the number of changes that have taken place since the design was made. The Bryden


Treasury building on the other side of the square has been cleaned since the designs were made and presents an entirely different face to both Parliament Street and Parliament Square. It would provide a much lighter reflection in the new building.
A worse change than that has been the change on the site itself. When the architects first designed the building they assumed that Richmond Terrace and Norman Shaw (North) would be demolished, and they assumed all along that a vast Home Office block would be built on the site beyond the new building. In 1970 there was the Willis inquiry, which I believe reported in November of the same year, but it was not until last autumn that the Government accepted the Willis recommendations, and Richmond Terrace and Norman Shaw were saved. I contend that, if the architects had known of that earlier, they might have produced quite a different design.
But, more important still, a very large proportion of the £33 million cost which my right hon. Friend has mentioned results from the fact that because of the saving of those buildings we do not have all the services which would have been on the site if the Home Office building had gone ahead.
I do not believe that we should reject the plan outright tonight. I should like the two young architects concerned, after listening to the debate and reading what hon. Members have said, to think about it again and try to introduce more modifications, bearing in mind that their work has been acclaimed by their profession and by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
It would be wrong to vote against the second motion, and I shall support it.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: It will be helpful to all in this short debate if speeches are brief. Therefore, I say straight away that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and with the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) on the first motion.
There can be little doubt in the mind of the House that we need more accommodation simply in order to operate effi-

ciently. It may be that it is a changing society that causes more Members to want more secretaries, research assistants and facilities. This need results in our having more people in the Library to assist us and so on. The situation is totally different from that for which our present building was built.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, South that we cannot simply satisfy our need for more accommodation by trying to convert every building across the way. Usually the capital cost of conversion is a great deal more than the cost of building specifically for a purpose, and there is usually hardly any doubt that the running cost is higher.
I have always held the view, as I did when I was on the Services Committee, that the House should have taken the whole site up to the Defence Department and put a purpose-built building there. That would be the most efficient way of dealing with the problem. With the greatest respect, I do not think that Richmond Terrace should stand in the way of that.
Members may argue on aesthetic grounds but my view is that sometimes something must go in a city as crowded as ours. I should have put on that site a purpose-built building that could be used for the entire House of Commons and all its appurtenances, departments and offices necessary for its proper function. Most organisations in the United Kingdom, whether using factories or office blocks, would have said of a building as inconvenient for their purposes as our present building is that they should simply replace it in toto by a modern building, where they could properly and efficiently perform their functions, which, like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe to be of some importance.
That plan was stopped, not originally because of Richmond Terrace or the Norman Shaw building but because certain Departments in Whitehall wanted some space for themselves. They wanted to get out of the Victorian buildings which, however pleasant they may look from the outside, are also extremely inconvenient for them to work in. That is why half the site became a block of offices. That is why I am sympathetic to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Ealing, South.
I shall vote against the second motion. I believe that the best solution is to create a new design for the whole area and to do the job properly. That would not increase the cost proportionately to the increase in the scale of the building and in the efficiency with which it will operate.
I suggest that there is no reason to reject the verdict of a competition. My amendment—I know that no amendment has been selected—suggested a course which is not uncommon in these circumstances—namely, if the client changes his mind or, as in this case, reverts to what was the client's original mind. It is not uncommon to say, "You are the architects; you have been chosen by fair competition conducted by your colleagues according to the rules set down by your colleagues. We have changed our minds about precisely what we want. We want you to do a proper job on the whole site and not just a job on half the site, which is now completely changed with the patterns of the buildings which will be upon it. Go ahead and redesign accordingly. That is what we now want."
Such an approach would give us a building which would be suited to our purpose.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: If that course of action were followed, does my hon. Friend suggest that the new design should be put on display in the House and that a further free vote should take place, with the result that all the difficulties which we are now experiencing would be rehashed?

Mr. English: There are always difficulties in making a political decision. If we say that we object to such a course we would also object to more important issues than one building. I deeply regretted that we had to have two votes—and both were lost—about broadcasting from the House. That is even more important than a parliamentary building.
I should never suggest that this community cannot afford to spend three hours on a debate and 10 minutes on a Division when we are considering erecting a building which will last for a century. That would be taking the alternative argument too far. We have been told that it will take 10 years to build the building which we are discussing and we must remember that it will last for at least a

century. We can afford to take a little time on redesigning it, building a proper building and taking out the whole of the House and all its appurtenant departments and offices and making a really efficient job.
Presumably, for historic reasons, we cannot tear down this old Palace. But from the point of view of efficiency it needs to be torn down and we should leave for another place which will meet such purposes as we may think fit. The House of Commons is in a sense the master of this country and it must work efficiently. Surely that is to the good of the population as a whole. Therefore, let us give hon. Members a proper place in which to work and not an extra office over the way.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: Like the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I have been greatly interested in this project ever since its inception. I have been especially interested because, like the right hon. Gentleman, when I was at the Ministry of Works I was responsible for starting the rebuilding of the Chamber after the previous one was destroyed by bombs during the war.
When this project was first debated in the House I urged that the architectural competition should be held in two stages as is now possible under the revised rules of the RIBA. The first stage is in the nature of an ideas competition and is confined to sketches and a general outline of the proposed treatment. Since that involves no detailed work, it attracts a much greater number of entries. Those entries are then examined and discussed and they can be exhibited to the public.
A small number of those entries are then selected to go forward into the second stage. In preparing their final designs the architects are able to take account of the views and criticisms which have been expressed. Nevertheless, that course was not adopted. As a result, we are now faced with a single proposal chosen from a limited number of entries. We have had no opportunity to give guidance or to exercise influence about its design.
Today we must decide between two motions, or perhaps vote against them both. I believe it is agreed that hon. Members must be given proper—and that


means better—accommodation in which to perform their important duties and that that accommodation cannot be provided within the Palace of Westminster. Therefore, a new building is necessary. On the other hand, opinions differ about whether we should adopt the Spence and Webster design for the building.
We must also consider whether the plans for the parliamentary building should be decided in isolation or considered in relation to the plans for the new Government offices on the neighbouring site in Whitehall. We are probably all agreed that the winning design has high quality and distinction. However, I am convinced that a building of this kind would not fit happily into the Westminster setting. Its excessive height has been reduced in the amended design by only 5 feet compared with the 25 feet which was recommended by the Greater London Council. The massive appearance of its long, flat and unbroken facade and its prominent glass superstructure would make an overpowering impact upon the whole character of Parliament Square and the historic site of the Palace of Westminster. I consider that the Palace should be left undisturbed by the intrusion of any incongruous new distraction to dominate the scene.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) said that we should be courageous, but we must also be right. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West said that it was necessary to wait a few years before it became possible to decide whether a new building was liked. I suggest that we must decide that issue before the building is erected and not a few years afterwards. The fact that a horror is in the process of being erected at St. Thomas' Hospital on the other side of the river is no justification for making a mistake.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, it was obviously a serious mistake to design the new parliamentary buildings and the large new Government office block on adjoining sites without any regard for one another. Fortunately, as a result of a public inquiry, the Government abandoned the Whitehall office project involving the demolition of Richmond Terrace and other listed buildings of distinction. We

are now in a position, therefore, to repair the earlier mistake and to consider the planning of this important area as a whole.
Members of Parliament and civil servants must have adequate accommodation up to modern standards. However, I submit that it does not follow that all the accommodation must be provided in two mammoth blocks. That is the issue. In replanning this combined area, it should prove possible to save Scotland Yard and the Whitehall Club, two tine listed buildings, as well as the attractive view of the river through Derby Gate, and provide the additional accommodation required for parliamentary and Civil Service purposes on the rest of the site. The suggestion that I should like to put to the House is that the accommodation should be provided in several medium-sized buildings, designed with due regard to the character of the existing surroundings.
It will be clear that I am opposed to the adoption of the Spense and Webster design. In my view, it would cause grave injury to the appearance of this world-famous area. On the assumption that the term "parliamentary building" in my right hon. Friend's motion, merely means accommodation for Members of Parliament, which could, if thought desirable, be provided in more than one building and not necessarily in a single giant block, I propose to vote in favour of the first motion and against the second.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I intervene simply as a member of the Services Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) wishes me to make it clear that in no way do I speak for the Liberal Party on this subject, and, therefore, I regret to have to tell the House that I do not do so. My right hon. and hon. Friends remain unconvinced by the arguments I have put to them in private.
It is right to cast our minds back over the history of this subject. We should recall the report of the Select Committee on Accommodation in 1954–20 years ago last month—which, under the chairmanship of the present Speaker, reported to the House that only by an extensive


new building could a satisfactory solution be found. Ten years ago another Select Committee report recommended a mock Gothic building. Then in 1968 we had the report of the New Building Subcommittee for which plans were prepared by the then Ministry of Works architect, Mr. Bedford, for a new building around New Palace Yard. That concept did not find favour with the House and never even reached a vote.
All the attempts in the recent past to provide much-needed accommodation have been turned down, largely, it is fair to say, although this is compressing the argument, on grounds of taste. The opposition expressed tonight by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and others again comes to the question of taste. I begin to wonder whether there will ever be an occasion when an assembly of 630 people will get a building enthusiastically accepted by all its members.

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the mock Gothic building and the recommendations of the Select Committee presided over by Mr. Speaker. I want to make clear now what was not understood at the time—that the idea was to continue Barry's building on the site. No one could have said that it did not conform, but people then did not want to continue the Barry building. They were in favour of an upended matchbox in New Palace Yard.

Mr. Steel: The right hon. Gentleman makes my point. At any time anyone can be found to be against a specific proposal on whatever ground. For example, tonight we have heard the right hon. Member for Streatham and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) united in their opposition to the proposed building but wanting different things instead. This is the difficulty all along. We can say time and again that we want a new building but the time comes when we have to take a decision on a specific building.
I believe that the capacity of Parliament to develop itself and to control the growing burgeoning of administration is hampered by the lack of facilities for hon. Members. The nature of Members of Parliament has changed. More and more, new Members of Parliament regard them-

selves fundamentally as pretty well full-time, whereas it is fair to say that the older generation of Members regarded themselves as part-time and pursued other affairs as well. That has applied to both sides of the House. But that is not realistic today and particularly tomorrow. A Member of Parliament of today, if he is to do his job of checking the executive, has to be equipped to do so. He has to have secretarial assistance and room in which to place his secretary, research assistance and the rest.
When we got a new extension to this building, as we had when the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was Minister of Public Building and Works—a very good building it was in Star Chamber Court—one of the new facilities we could boast about was that we each had a pink ribbon on which to hang our swords. But the public expects us not to be crowded into over-crowded desk rooms, some of them outside the precincts altogether.
We on the Services Committee are turning our attention to something that has not been mentioned much up to now—accommodation for those who serve us. Some of our own secretaries work in appalling conditions which would not be tolerated in any commercial or public concern other than the Palace of Westminster. Many of the House's staff work in disgraceful conditions. Unless we get some new accommodation, started as quickly as possible, we are being unfair as employers as well as unfair to ourselves in our task here.
I want to make my position clear about the architecture. When the result of the competition was announced and I looked at it for the first time as a member of the Services Committee, I was extremely doubteful and on a snap decision then I might have voted against it. But the more I have listened to the evidence of the assessors and of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and the more adjustments that have been made to the building to meet the demands of criticism and the requests of the Services Committee, the more I have become convinced that this building and its potential is the answer.
Although the right hon. Member for Streatham describes it as an "incongruous new distraction", he must in fairness


admit that that epithet could be applied to all kinds of twentieth century buildings which might be erected on the site. But I believe that this building is a bold design. The whole concept of reflecting the buildings round and about is new and exciting. With the one proviso about cost, which is a matter for the Government—and I am sorry that it has been necessary to delay the project for two years—I believe that we should now come to a decision not just that we want a new building but that we have one here with a tremendous potential.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I do not object to the new building, although I think it would look better in Leeds, Ealing, Roxburgh, Selkirk or Peebles. What I do not feel happy about is that the building should occupy the place proposed. It does have considerable imagination but the site is one of the most important in the world, certainly in this country.
I acknowledge that it is an immense and difficult project to design a building which will fit both with this Palace and with the Treasury and the Home Office buildings and all the other buildings in the vicinity. I am afraid that, stretching the point as far as I can, in my humble opinion this building does not match up to those stringent requirements.
I wonder whether we have built our last stone building. It seems incredible that we have no public buildings proposed in the modern idiom in stone. I am saddened that we seem to have turned our back on the skill and craftsmanship which made this building and many other stone buildings and assumed that concrete, steel and glass are the only materials in which modern architects can express their art. I do not believe that to be so. Even if it were so I am not sure that its design comes up to requirements.
A word now about cost. Taking the figure as £10 million which is what it seems to be approximately, although no doubt we shall have a Concorde here too and it will escalate over the years, this works out at £16,000 per hon. Member. I wonder whether this is not too large a sum for us to spend upon ourselves and whether we are really applying it in the right direction. Even assuming that we can afford it——

Dr. John A. Cunningham: The hon. Member has been talking about stone-faced buildings and buildings of glass and concrete. Now he talks of cost. Is he aware that stone-faced buildings probably cost twice as much as buildings made of glass and concrete?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should allow me to complete my short speech. I will deal with the point.
In my opinion, this money could well be spent, perhaps to greater advantage for hon. Members, if we felt that we could readily afford to spend it on ourselves. What would be of the greatest help to hon. Members would be if they could find accommodation which they could afford within a short distance of this House.
I know as a Conservative and as one who does not believe in State ownership that it will seem surprising to many if I suggest that I do not see why we should not use this £10 million to buy up a considerable number of leases on houses and flats in the vicinity of Westminster and let them to hon. Members at economic rents for such periods as they belong to this House. That would give them places to work, and it would be far more effective than this new building.
This brings me to the question which has so far been acceptable to all hon. Members: Do we need the building at all? I am a little surprised at the scale of it. It is to provide 450 rooms for Members. We all know that between a quarter to one half of hon. Members hardly ever come to this place except to vote. The other half who are here have rooms, for the most part. If those who do not have rooms and want rooms were to go into their new rooms, who would be left in the Chamber? What is this great volume of extra work which has been cast upon us by an ever-more demanding electorate? We have been managing so far for 140 years in this manner. I have been a Member of this House for 13 years and it is only this year that I have got a room which I share.
Noting how scarcely I have used my room I wonder whether it is really true to say that there is this vast load of office work placed upon us. There are rooms for those who wish to do a great deal of paper-work but I do not believe that our job is to sit in offices doing paper-work. It is perfectly possible to provide facilities


for secretaries and dictating staff without going to the extent of providing a room for every Member of the House.
I would welcome the sort of plan which my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) advocated; namely, that there should be extra buildings for staff, for those Members who need rooms, for secretaries, interview rooms, dictating rooms and so on. But I cannot believe that we need extra accommodation on anything like the scale contained in the proposed new building.
It will have the effect of drawing more Members away from the Chamber, from the Smoking Room, the Committee Rooms, the Tea Room, from all the activities which we engage in. If we feel that as a House we are becoming less effective I wonder whether we are right to think that by providing more space, more offices and room for us to do our paper work we shall in some way re-assert the authority of this House over the executive. What we do to the executive and how we control the destiny of this country as a House depends much more upon our will and initiative in this Chamber than it does upon providing us with more thick carpeted plush office space.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Giles Radice: My only excuse for intervening is that as a new Member I am perhaps able to look at this concept of a new Parliamentary building without the benefit of years of experience. I hope that that may make up for the fact that I have not earned my spurs as a member of the Duncan Committee or that which was presided over by Mr. Speaker, that I am not a member of the Services Committee and I did not speak in the earlier debate on the parliamentary building although I listened with growing fascination, particularly to the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) who, unfortunately, is not here tonight.
Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I start from the premise of the Boyle Report which said that most hon. Members must be considered as working here on a full-time basis. I concede that there is a r7ôle for some involvement in other jobs by hon. Members. Judging by the time that the majority of Mem-

bers say they spend in parliamentary duties—they gave this in evidence to the Boyle Committee—and also judging by what constituents now expect of them, Members must increasingly be considered as being full-time.
If that is the case, and it was the case that Boyle accepted in giving us increased salaries, it also follows that Members must be equipped for doing a full-time job. The basic requirements for doing that must be a room and a telephone of one's own reasonably near the Chamber, with suitable accommodation for one's secretary and for parliamentary staff. At the moment such accommodation is shocking. I am glad that the Government accept this principle. Any manager or full-time trade union official now takes such facilities for granted, as do Members of Parliament in almost every other Western European country.
To those, like the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who fear that somehow the provision of reasonable office accommodation will destroy the magic of Parliament, I say that there is a far more serious danger. It is that parliamentarians will fail to live up to the standards which their constituents are increasingly demanding of them. I worked for a Member of Parliament as a research assistant in the early 1960s and I can see the great change that has come about in the demands that constituents now make of Members of Parliament. Having examined the evidence, I do not see how we can provide adequate accommodation without a new parliamentary building. I have heard arguments for our taking over another place, but I do not think we can get that without another civil war.
The only possible alternative, the only one that has been argued seriously tonight or earlier, is that somehow, by in-filling in the Palace of Westminster and by using a building which the police authorities have totally rejected as being inadequate, we can get something of which we might be proud. I welcome the Government's view that there is no proper substitute for a real parliamentary building.
The question then is: should it be the Spence and Webster building? The


main arguments against accepting this design are these. First, it is too luxurious and has too many sauna baths and squash courts. That is not a serious argument. It is up to us. If we do not want sauna baths and squash courts, we can vote against them. We can arrange our own provision.
The second argument is that it is too expensive. The figure of £30 million has been banded about. The real cost is the cost for the building of £11½ million, because we would have to spend most of the other expenditure anyway. There never will be a time when it will be right to build a new parliamentary building. There will never be a time when it will not be other than expensive.
The third and most serious argument is that it is aesthetically wrong. We must accept that there are arguments for and against. The present design has won a Commonwealth competition, and the whole House is in debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) for setting up the competition. The design won the competition against many entries. It has the support of the Services Committee which has taken representations from a wide variety of authorities. I accept that it may need some modifications, as the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) argued, but in the end Members have to decide one way or another. I shall vote for both motions in the belief that by doing so I shall be voting to improve the quality of representation in this country.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: It is appropriate and proper for me to begin by declaring an interest. I am an architect and town planning consultant. When I was fortunate enough to be elected to this House three years ago I was conscious of coming from the third and second most unpopular professions to the most unpopular profession in the eyes of the public. As I am an architect, I might be expected to be against the winning design because I did not design it myself, but, in fact, I am very much in favour of the winning design. Needless to say, I have absolutely no financial interest in the firm that was fortunate enough to win. Indeed, I did not meet the two young architects until after the decision was announced.
I will state my position simply and briefly. We need the accommodation that the Spence and Webster building would provide. The design is the most economic way of providing that accommodation, and any alternative in the sense of converting the existing buildings—Palace Chambers, Bridge Street and the Norman Shaw North building—would be more expensive and less convenient. I believe that it is a very good design of high quality, and I agree with the distinguished assessors and the Royal Fine Art Commission who said:
something better than we have been accustomed to seeing before us for quite some time.
That in itself is not necessarily a commendation. It is perhaps more a reflection on the poor quality of modern architecture. As a member of the profession of architecture, the criticism I make of modern architecture is that architects have utterly failed to explain to the public why they build in the way they do with the new materials.
The building is in scale with the other buildings around, although it is in a different style. I therefore think that the winning design should be proceeded with as soon as possible. If there is anything I disagree with in the two motions put down by my right hon. Friend it is that I believe we should start the work tomorrow rather than "in due course." I say that for two reasons. First, the longer we leave it the more expensive it will be. Secondly, I do not believe that if we started it tomorrow it would in any way impinge upon Government public spending policy because very little cost would accrue in the first two years of the building work.
If we cannot agree on this building, we shall never agree on another. For that reason the previous Parliament was quite right, four-and-a-half years ago, to say that we should go ahead with the building and leave it to a distinguished group of assessors to advise us on which building we should proceed with. If we vote against both motions we shall be backing down on a principle taken four-and-a-half years ago, as we are perfectly entitled to do, but in doing so we shall be breaking faith with those who expended time and money entering the competition and, perhaps more importantly, doing irreparable harm to the system of open competition.
I wish to make one or two points on costs. First, some wildly exaggerated figures have been bandied about. My right hon. Friend said that the total project would cost about £33 million, of which about £11½ million at current expenditure would be the cost of the construction of the new works. Of that £33 million we have already spent almost £5 million on site acquisition costs.
Secondly, the costs would be spread over at least eight years. Even if we take the total figure of £33 million we are talking about being asked to spend £3½ million to £4 million per year. The longer we leave it the more it will cost. To put the real figure in perspective, the cost to the nation over the next eight years would be approximately the annual cost of the maintenance of our part of the Palace of Westminster, for in maintenance costs—fuel, heating, light, and so on—we spend currently on this building £3½ million a year.
The building design, unlike any conversion job, is much more flexible than would be the conversion of existing buildings. To those people who think that we would be providing for ourselves luxurious accommodation—the Inn on the Park syndrome—rather than, as I believe, adequate accommodation, I say that the swimming pool and the recreational facilities come to about 2 per cent. of the total floor area. I should be willing to give that up in the modifications if people felt very deeply about it.
I conclude by referring to the design. My opinion is no more valid than that of any other hon. Member, but I ask hon. Members to consider one or two matters. First, I respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) when he said that it would be out of scale with the surrounding buildings. We must agree to differ on that. I think it would be very much in scale. It is no higher. With the exception of Richmond Terrace and one or two other ancillary buildings, it is about the same height as the surrounding buildings.
Secondly, I ask the House to realise that, although the building is in a completely different style from the buildings that surround it, there are no two buildings in Parliament Square that are in the

same style. Therefore, ecleticism, which is what Parliament Square is all about, would not suffer by this new building. It would preserve the line of Whitehall, Parliament Street and Bridge Street would open up views at ground level of the old Treasury building facade to the River Thames. That is an important point to consider aesthetically.
I turn to the point about the building's reflective walls. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made a point about a stone building. The point I make about this glass building is that because we are building the elevation in glass it will be much more reflective than the model suggests and, therefore, softer in relation to surrounding buildings and more in harmony with them. The more I examine the building the more I am convinced that it is a good design which will make a distinguished contribution on an historic site.
Controversy always surrounds buildings in new styles but they can still become accepted as great works of architecture. We have only to think of the first two Renaissance examples in this country, the Queen's House at Greenwich and the Old Banqueting House in Whitehall by Inigo Jones.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) talked of Wren's great masterpiece, St. Pauls, which was bitterly opposed by the mediæval clergy. We must also remember that at first there was open hostility to Coventry Cathedral, which is now more and more accepted as a masterpiece by the majority of our nation.
I believe that the proposed new parliamentary building is in its way in that great tradition of English architecture, and I ask the House to raise its eyes and to assert its confidence in our future and the future of this august Chamber. I ask the House to vote for both motions, for if we do I feel that the decision will be something we can all be proud of.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I must say at the outset of my speech that I am against the proposed new parliamentary building. Having said that, I hope I shall not be classified as somebody who adheres to the mediæval clergy.
Ever since I have been in this House I have argued very strongly for better accommodation for Members but in particular—and I am on the record on this point—for better accommodation for the secretaries of this House. We have argued this matter many times. Therefore, because I among others am opposed to the building, it must not be thought that I am against better accommodation and indeed more accommodation for Members' secretaries and staff. It seems to be assumed in some quarters that, if one is against the building, one is against the idea of seeking better conditions for ourselves and our secretaries. That is not a point of view I take.
What I am afraid of is that some hon. Members have now, understandably, reached a position in which they take the view that if we do not vote for this particular building, we shall never at any time get a new building. Therefore, they are prepared to put aside all the questions of what the building will look like, whether it will fit in with the environment and whether it is important to the future of Parliament Square and to Parliament. We are more concerned with whether or not we get a building. I want better accommodation, and ultimately a new building, but I do not want this building.
The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) made an interesting speech in which he said that if we do not accept this building we shall be insulting the architect. Then he went on to say that they are young architects and ought to take back the design and have another look at it. Therefore, I suppose he feels that we are insulting the architects in a limited way because he still feels that they should take back the design. I agree with him, but surely it would not be an insult to say that this House by a majority does not agree with their proposed building. We must remember that the building will be with us for a long time. We are all these days more environment conscious and this is very right and proper.
We hear much talk about the experts and it is said that we must agree because the experts say so. Anybody who had ever visited the city of Liverpool can see what the experts have done. I refer to the people who call themselves planners. They have ruined the city. They have taken the guts out of it. The most hideous buildings have been erected by the

experts. Let us hear no more talk about experts. Some chaps who merely lay a few bricks a day and some joiners are probably more expert when it comes to knowing what is a nice building than many designers.
My right he Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who is not present at the moment, made a very interesting speech in the last debate. Ultimately he fell over backwards to be on everyone's side. But his main point was that he did not intend to be fooled by the experts.
Some of our greatest modern architects say that it is a good building. It does not follow that we should necessarily go along with them. We have seen the results of some of their buildings. They are not very pleasant. They are not what we should contemplate building here.
The GLC has criticised the building. People argue about the hideous building that the GLC has put up across the river, and they point out that St. Thomas' Hospital is also a hideous building. But we ought not to say that the GLC may not be right in this case. It may be that it has learned from its own mistakes.
As happened in the last debate, I want to draw attention to a very interesting article by Jill Craigie, and I refer to her in her own right. About this building she said:
The architects, Webster and Spence, devised a vast, rectangular roof of steel girders which they fancifully describe as a 'filigree', thus suggesting intricate delicacy. … But a mere filigree, indicated by delicate lines in the models, would surely collapse if required to carry so massive a weight. The steel girders may well turn out to be very much heavier. This structure, by the way, would be covered with plastic and rises higher than that of the Palace of Westminster.
Do we want a plastic-glass-concrete-steel monster in the midst of this square? I do not want that.
I am not certain that I am dedicated to the idea of stone. I too accept the point made by one of my hon. Friends that if we had stone it would be much more expensive and might even cost twice as much. But it would be twice as good to look at, and it would fit in. If we are concerned with putting up a building which is good to look at, which will last a long time and which will be functional at the same time, we ought to consider that.
There were other designs from which we could choose. We could pay the prize money to those who won——

Mr. Patrick Cormack: They have already got it.

Mr. Heffer: Then that problem does not arise. But we do not necessarily have to have their building. There were other designs. In my view the design which came second was much better.
I ask this House to support the first proposal, although I am not entirely happy with it, but to reject the second proposal, to look further at the designs and the situation, and to come back with an alternative proposal.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: Unlike the timorous people denounced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I never derided Coventry Cathedral, for one reason, namely that it had to stand in its own site and dominate that site.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford), I agree that the buildings now standing on the north side of Bridge Street are unworthy of Parliament Square. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) that the proposed and winning design is not worthy to stand in that setting. In saying that I do not mean to be insulting to the architects. I mean merely that we must consider the importance of planning the area as a whole.
Things have change since the competition was instituted, in that we have had the report reprieving Richmond Terrace and part of the Norman Shaw building and altering the future of the whole of the area.
I was one of a small minority on the Services Committee—a distinguished minority, none the less—which voted against the proposed new building. I repeat that this was not intended as any insult to the architects, because I am sure that this is in itself, like Coventry Cathedral, a good building. Perhaps the House should blame itself for not laying down all the right conditions, the first of which should have been that this should be a building which goes well with the Palace of Westminster and fits in with the whole setting of Parliament Square.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that there is much to be said, in spite of any increased costs, for considering a building of stone on this site. My appeal to the House is that we should not be too sefish of our own interests as Members. There is no difficulty about finding accommodation in the House if one wants it. When I had to leave the Whips Office rather suddenly in October 1971, I just wandered round the building till I found a vacant desk and I sat down at it. I have been sitting there happily ever since.
Let us vote in favour of the first motion, not so much for the sake of ourselves but because, as a number of hon. Members have said, including the hon. Member for Walton, this is important for the Officers and Officials of the House who work so hard for us, for our secretaries and for many departments of the House such as the catering staff. Let us vote against the second motion because in so doing, without any insult to the architects, we shall be voting for securing the character of Parliament Square for the generations to come.

8.43 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), although I do not agree with him. I am interested to hear that he is a squatter in the House. I have the privilege of sharing a room here with 13 other hon. Members. We have two squatters in our room. In similar manner to the hon. Gentleman, they arrived, chose a seat and sat. If everyone turns up at once, there are 15 to share 13 desks. This makes the point about overcrowding of the accommodation in the existing House of Commons.
I am a supporter of both motions. The argument against the first motion has gone largely by default. Hardly anyone has spoken against the need for a new parliamentary building. As for the argument against the second motion, no speaker has yet proposed what in the normal course of events could be a realistic alternative. The various views expressed against the second motion, views which fall into the categories of the merits of the building, the cost of the building, or the effect of a parliamentary


building on the House, appear to have been advanced to prevent a building from being built. In other words they are arguments against the first motion, though many hon. Members have said they are not against that kind of proposal.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) that we should proceed with the building not only in due course: we ought to proceed with the building as soon as possible. I particularly take his point about the minimal effect it would have on Government expenditure. His right hon. Friends might take very serious note of that. If we do not proceed with a new parliamentary building as soon as possible, Parliament will be seen in the eyes of many as less and less relevant simply because it will become more and more difficult for the ordinary Member to have any impact on what happens in Whitehall. This is crucial to the whole argument.
People are concerned about the effect on the House. I concede that it might have a very serious effect: it might sweep away some of the cobweb mentality which affects this place at the moment and it might break up some of the debates in the Tea Room or Smoking Room and have the effect of preparing Members more for debates in the Chamber and in Committees—an exceedingly dangerous thing to do, I concede; but it is a serious consideration.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Oh.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend says "Oh", but he is a London Member and has a London constituency. It is an entirely different consideration for a provincial Member representing a constituency hundreds of miles away, with no home in London, no business interests in London, and with nowhere other than somewhere in the House of Commons to work.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that my parliamentary business is almost entirely done within the allocated space within the precincts of this House.

Dr. Cunningham: I did not say it was not. The point I am making is that my hon. Friend comes here from home; he can work at home if necessary; he can

go back home and develop support for his work from his home. So he is in a much better position, in total, than is a Member representing a provincial constituency. That was my point. I did not mean to impute anything.

Mr. William Molloy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No. I have not referred to the hon. Member and I want to be brief.
I cannot speak with any knowledge of planning or any knowledge of architects. Indeed, in spite of what people may think I do not know any architects. However, I note that the Royal Institute of British Architects has commended the building; I note that the Royal Fine Art Commission has commended the building; I note that the two architects who have spoken in the debate favour the building. I do not think it is really on for right hon. and hon. Members, with vague knowledge of architecture, to say that their views are a good reason for turning it down. My view of the architecture of one of the alternative proposals might not be a favourable one but I would not say that that in itself should be conclusive argument against it.
It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) say that we might consider alternatives and ignore what the specialists say. If we followed my hon. Friend's logic we might favour a building of a design by an architect who did not win a place in the competition.
If the House does not support the second motion we shall be in the position of the old woman who lived in a shoe: we should be the old Mother of Parliaments living in a shoe with so many Members of Parliament that she did not know what to do—so she did nothing. That is the danger of the present situation. Above all else, it is important for the relevance and effectiveness of Parliament that we do something effectively, and that means voting for the second motion.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I could not disagree more than I do with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham).
want to be brief, because I have had the opportunity of deploying certain views on earlier occasions but I should initially like to bring out two points. First, whether we want it or not, we have two years in which to sort ourselves out. The Chancellor has decreed that. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) might bemoan the fact, it is a fact.
Secondly, we should bear in mind the contradictory argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford), who said that originally this building was conceived as part of a grand design to sweep away the whole of one side of Whitehall, that this building would be at the end of it, and that the architects accepted this as their brief and worked to it.
The result is total incongruity. Therefore, I absolutely endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). It is an incongruous building. I accept that this is being subjective. I do not necessarily dissociate myself from those who have said that the building in a different setting might have its attractions, but here in Parliament Square it is glaringly incongruous. Indeed, it would obtrude to the detriment and disadvantage of this place which we all love and enjoy.
My main reason for opposing the building and, indeed, the two motions is not merely my personal subjective dislike of its design and my fear of what it would do in being destructive of the harmony of Parliament Square, but that it is seriously open to question whether we need a building at all. My real fear is that if, across the road, we erected a free-standing building with all the elaborate, extravagant facilities that it would incorporate, we should be drawing away from the life of this place. That would indeed be detrimental to Parliament.
Although people make comments about our needing better facilities—we do need better facilities—this legislature does not compare unfavourably in both its personnel and results with legislatures throughout the world. We can all take some pride in the traditions that we have established here.
Every hon. Member has a legitimate right to expect and to demand his own

room and, more important, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out in a most persuasive speech, his secretary has a right to demand proper facilities and space. But I suggest that we should seriously consider, in the terms of the amendment in the names of several right hon. and hon. Members and myself, whether these facilities could not properly be provided in buildings within this vicinity. We have not only Norman Shaw South, but Norman Shaw North, Richmond Terrace and the Middlesex Guildhall. Within the Palace of Westminster we have a number of offices which need not be here. For example, the IPU and some of the stores and workshops housed within this building do not need to be within the Palace of Westminster. If there were a sensible reallocation of space within the Palace of Westminster, if we could take over the whole of those buildings that I have enumerated, and make a parliamentary complex at the end of Whitehall, I believe that we could provide adequately and properly for all our needs, both personal and corporate, and for our secretaries. This proposed solution has not been sufficiently explored. Some of the buildings have been looked at, but not all. They should all be investigated.
We should also consider whether demolition of part of the Bridge Street complex and a wide, green, pleasant space might be a better contribution by Parliament to London, to this country and, indeed, to the Commonwealth than what is proposed to be erected.
I hope that many hon. Members will consider seriously whether a building of this type would enhance our parliamentary rôle and add to the value of the work of Parliament. If they feel that a new building is necessary, fair enough, but they should then decide whether, as they have two years in which to consider the matter, they should go ahead tonight merely because this is the only option open, or whether it would not be better to try to produce something that would be a little more compatible with the glorious architectural heritage which surrounds us in this part of London.
I implore hon. Members on both sides of the House at the very least to vote down this building which we are being offered and which would be resented throughout the United Kingdom both for


its extravagance and for its personality, and also to consider seriously whether we need a new building at all.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) will forgive me if I do not follow in detail the point he was developing.
I strongly support all those who have argued that we must have proper conditions in which to serve our constituents and the country effectively. That means basically that, if we are to do our work confidentially and with privacy, we and our secretaries must have private accommodation of our own and not be expected to share facilities with others, and it should mean, above all, a proper telephone service for effective communications.
I want to enter a plea on behalf of that gallant band of Members who are struggling to make a go of that outpost of the parliamentary empire, No. 1 Bridge Street as it exists now. We belong to an exclusive band, and sometimes the difficulties with which we contend are not well understood by all our colleagues.
We have become accustomed to the inconvenience of working at that distance, to the sprints that we have to make when the Division bells ring and to the sprints that we have to make when we receive a message—and we do not always receive them—that our constituents are waiting for us in the Central Lobby.
Although we may have learned how to cope with that particular difficulty, in recent months insult has been added to injury, because we in No. 1 have been penalised by not being offered the telephone service that is available to other Members. We have been expected to make do without an automatic message service which I understand has been installed for Members elsewhere.
What is particularly ridiculous about this situation is that by virtue of the fact that we are away from the main building we have to be away from our desks more than others who are working nearer to the Chamber and the Central Lobby. That being so, priority should have been accorded to those who are in No. 1 Bridge Street when the new telephone service with its automatic message system was introduced.
I have raised this matter with the Leader of the House, with officials of the House and with my own Whips. Whenever the matter is raised I am told firmly, but very courteously of course, that if I do not like the conditions in Bridge Street I have an alternative, and that is to move to Dean's Yard. What has happened at Dean's Yard is that an automatic service has been installed, but what is overlooked is that over there one's base is even further away and the inconvenience of getting to the House quickly is even greater.
I should therefore like to enter a plea to the Leader of the House. As, inevitably, there will be a time lag before anything happens to No. 1 Bridge Street, this indignity, this imposition on Members there, should be rectified. It is intolerable that some Members should have a second-class service compared with that enjoyed by their colleagues.
I now wish to revert briefly to the main subject of the debate because I am strongly on the side of those who believe that we must have proper working conditions. I believe that when we argue for these we have to see our arguments in the context of the general political situation, the general malaise in British democracy at the moment.
We should be foolish, when discussing this crucial subject, to overlook the fact that an increasingly well-informed electorate is cynical about the body politic. There is a feeling, which many of us would, of course, contest, that we use the electorate in order to reach this elite exclusive political circle and that, once here, we want to surround ourselves with the best possible working conditions to tackle the executive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I hope that my hon. Friends will listen to the argument—and that once we have got here we do not maintain the links that we should with our constituents.
If we are to convince the electorate that we are serious in our task of tackling the excutive efficiently, doing properly the job that we are sent here to do, I believe that the case that we should be developing now is much wider than the one with which we seem to have become preoccupied. The priority for which we should be arguing is proper facilities in kind for manning our constituencies while we are here. We should


have good, effective communication with our constituents, and that is what is lacking at the moment. The more impersonal and technological society becomes, the more important it is that we should be accessible to ordinary people.
I therefore want to give an extra dimension to this debate by arguing that we should not become so mesmerised by the need for a building, that we overlook that one of the greatest drawbacks to our doing our job properly is the lack of proper on-going facilities for most Members in their constituencies. Therefore, I support those who argue that we must urgently have the basic minimum requirements here for doing properly the job that we have to do, but that is only part of our job, as I see it.
I know that I shall be accused of using a populist argument, but the fact that an argument is popular is no reason for eschewing it. When I look at the immediate needs in my constituency of countless people who do not have a proper place in which to live, let alone work, and who are told that however sad their situation may be, the public funds are not available to build at the necessary rate, the one cautionary note that I would implore the House to bear in mind is that, while the basic amenities must be there and, obviously, we want something that will be in harmony with the general environment, we cannot justify a single penny of expenditure on ourselves in excess of what is absolutely necessary.
One message that must go out from this debate is that we want proper working conditions, but on a functional basis, not on any basis that can be looked on as a self-indulgent extravagance.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) that we should neither indulge ourselves nor be extravagant, but I believe that we should have some modest new building as soon as possible for our secretaries and the staff of the House—some modest building for our secretaries and the staff of the House. I repeat that phrase because that is the most important consideration of all.
Several hon. Members have said that our constituents demand more of us. But

let us examine what they demand of us. First, they demand that we should be available for interviews. Second, they demand that we should attend wine and cheese parties, or the Socialist equivalent. Third, they demand that we should be in our places here. Fourth, they demand that we should be in an assortment of private meetings, gossiping and talking among ourselves and formulating thoughts, so that we may come here and attend Committees of the House.
They do not expect of us that we should lock ourselves away in private rooms, with or without our secretaries. They imagine that we should, first and foremost, be available to them in the constituencies and, second, that we should be right here, as a handful of us are tonight.
Therefore, I oppose the building. I was about to say that I oppose it hook, line and sinker, but one cannot do that with a building.
I have the greatest admiration for the architects. I hope that they sell their concept to a new Brasilia elsewhere. Some of the most specious arguments have been put forward, such as the argument that this is an insult to the architectural profession or to these two estimable chaps. They were given the wrong terms of reference. We do not want what they have done, because they were told to do the wrong job. Many hon. Members have complained about British architects completely forgetting the fact that it is not the architects who are to blame but the miserable patrons and the lousy town planners. It is the patrons who are parsimonious with their money for a variety of reasons, because they are seeking to resell a building at maximum profit or because their squalid council is trying to get the greatest number of houses built and, therefore, the greatest number of of Labour votes—the greatest number of houses as is so noticeable in greater Glasgow.
The British architect today is in a very bad way because of the patrons and the town planners. But these two particular achitects have done an estimable job and I wish them well elsewhere.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: We have heard some rather bizarre ideas tonight. We had all heard of floating


voters. The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) wants us to become floating Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) wants us to abandon not only the whole of the building but the Chamber as well, and to rebuild across the road. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is so patriotic that he thinks that the building which would be excellent for Brasillia is too good for this country.
Tempted as I am to follow some of those flights of fancy, I shall be brief and, therefore, restrict myself to four points.
My first point concerns the cost of the proposed building. It was suggested in the debate in March, from the Government Front Bench and from the back benches, that it would be cheaper to adapt the existing buildings on the site and some other buildings, and that this would be a means of providing acceptable alternative accommodation for hon. Members.
The Services Committee examined that proposal and found it wanting. Its vote was unequivocal. It said that the accommodation which would result would not be satisfactory for Members' specific requirements and that it would be uneconomic to undertake either of the two projects which the DOE put to the Committee.
So it is now clear that the proposed new building is not only the best solution to the needs of hon. Members but will also be the cheapest way of meeting them.
My second point concerns the suggestion that what is proposed is a luxury building. It has been referred to in the New Statesman as a Grand Babylon Hotel, and by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) as an Inn on the Park. It is no such thing. Overwhelmingly, the new building will be a place in which work will be done. In their specification from the Services Committee the architects received a proposal that there should be leisure facilities for Members, and their design provides for a swimming pool, sauna baths and other such recreational facilities. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) has told us that these recreational facilities will comprise only 2 per cent. of the area of the whole building. In no sense are those facilities essential to the design

as a whole. They could easily be scrapped and replaced by entirely functional facilities if that were the wish of the House.
My third point concerns the site of the new building. Around it stands distinguished buildings representing virtually every age in our history, from the 11th century onwards. It is only the modern age which is unrepresented in Parliament Square at present. The site on which the building would be erected is littered with a nondescript collection of buildings which would be no loss if they were swept away.
I have studied the proposals of Messrs. Spence and Webster probably as closely as any other hon. Member of the House. I have had the opportunity three times of watching the slides and projections which the architects have produced to illustrate what the building will look like and the magnificent views which are likely to be obtained from it. I have no hesitation in saying that this will be a magnificent building worthy in every way of the site on which it will stand. It will not be solely or even mainly for the benefit of Members of Parliament. The Services Committee's original brief for the competition was extremely narrow and self-centred. However, the architects have shown themselves more aware of their wider responsibilities to the public than has the House itself. While meeting all the specifications for facilities for hon. Members laid down in the competition, they have succeeded in liberating a large public space—rather larger than the area of Leicester Square—which will for the first time enable the public to be provided with first class amenities when they visit Parliament. After all, it is meant to be for their benefit, not ours.
Tonight a decision must be made. It can only effectively be made by passing both resolutions on the Order Paper. If only the first motion is passed and the second defeated no building will be erected for at least 15 or 20 years. If tonight we say "No" to the second motion, we shall be effectively shackling not only ourselves but our successors for a generation to come.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-superMare): I shall not cover any of the historical matters about the project since they have already been well aired tonight


and are well known to hon. Members. Architectural matters are questions of personal judgment. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made that point in a forceful speech. He is opposed to the building, but I believe it to be a satisfactory and ingenious solution to the problem which was placed before the architects. I believe that the idea of allowing the existing buildings to reflect on the surfaces is probably as good a way of getting over the difficulties of the architectural jigsaw of Parliament Square as any that have been suggested tonight.
Speaker after speaker has acknowledged that facilities are at present appalling, and that includes facilities not just for hon. Members but for their secretaries, and for the staff of the House. Shortly after I came to this place I asked the Deputy Serjeant at Arms to take me on a conducted tour of the entire House. I can assure the House that it was a most interesting and rewarding morning. I confirm that there is scarcely room for the present facilities and functions to be carried out adequately. I confirm that every corner of the building is being used and that those not being used have been considered for use.
I should like to see the judicial functions of the House of Lords moved to the Law Courts. I do not see why barristers should have a dining room in this building. Those matters, however, are but a tiny fraction of the problem which faces us. It is essential if we are to deal in a modern manner with the problems that arise we must have an office building in which to do it. The building that is proposed is in no way a social centre. It is 450 offices. I admit that a swimming pool has been included, but is that unreasonable in a building that will serve about 2,500 people, many of whom have to remain here for 12 or 14 hours a day frequently against their own volition? I do not think that that is either extravagant or pampering the soft flesh of Members of Parliament. It is a perfectly normal thing to provide in a modern building.
No commercial organisation would consider putting up such a building and not putting into it the facilities that are proposed. The Shell Oil Company put

up a building far more magnificent, with far greater facilities for swimming, sport and other things, and it is a commercial organisation using its shareholders' money.
I fully accept that if I began to argue in financial terms, talking about commercial rents and the like, I could lead myself into difficulties. But the fact is that I am told that to rent 400,000 sq. ft. in this part of London today would cost about £4,800,000 a year. I am no property developer, and I have no knowledge of the subject, but it strikes me that for a cost of £30 million the country would be obtaining a very economic investment, at a very fair return, by spending the money on the building.
One question has been mentioned by no one tonight. If either motion falls, particularly the first, what is to happen to the site, which we all acknowledge to be important? We all acknowledge that the present buildings are inadequate and out of date. The Government have already bought a considerable part of the site. Therefore, may I suggest that we should know what is to happen if the new parliamentary building does not go there? Is it to be a block for yet another Department? Is it to be offices for civil servants instead of for Members of Parliament? If so, let that be said and let the House know what it is considering.
I intend to vote for both motions. If they are passed, I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine very closely the economics of postponing the decision on the building, as it seems that under present circumstances delaying it is likely to increase its net cost and ultimately the taxpayer will have to spend more.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I declare my interest as a member of the Services Committee and a very firm supporter of the new parliamentary building.
The whole debate has centred around individual judgments of what is correct in terms of siting a new building in Parliament Square. The Services Committee and now the House have had the benefit of the views of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Fine Art Commission and many other qualified bodies. We have also had the advantage


tonight of the views of that up-and-coming distinguished firm of architectural assessors, Messrs. Cormack, Ridley, Sandys and Heffer, who seem to be telling us that what we must do is to deny posterity the advantage of having in this great site, this permier site of the nation in Parliament Square, the culture, the image of the day's generation, and that we must slavishly follow all that has gone in the past.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman), himself a distinguished member of the architectural profession, spelt out that those were the same arguments as were put against the great efforts of Sir Christopher Wren and all the other people who contributed towards making this capital city of Great Britain a gem in the eyes of the whole world.
I want to turn from that matter of taste to what I believe is the essential ingredient of the whole discussion. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) that it we turn down the second motion for the Webster-Spence building we shall be putting off for at least 20 years the prospect of having anything at all.
As a member of the Services Committee I have recently been engaged with other hon. Members in inspecting the accommodation which is available for the staff in this building. On that point alone, it would be a disgrace if for the next 20 years we condemn the secretaries, the officers of the House and the people who work in the Refreshment Department—in fact, all the 2,000 people who work in the building serving society, the nation and hon. Members—to the unacceptable conditions in which they have to work and in which they have to rest. So to condemn those people would be a shameful act.
Some hon. Members have spoken as if the new parliamentary building was designed only for hon. Members. That is just not the case and its demonstrates that they have not read the reports and studied the information which is available. The new parliamentary building will provide 450 places for hon. Members, 450 places for secretaries and 380 places for officers and staff. In fact, over 1,200 people would be accommodated in the new building. They would be accommodated not in over-plush or over-

accommodated refinement but in essential working conditions.
It is not sufficient to turn down the building on cost alone. That is not sufficient unless we consider the cost of human indignity which we will be responsible for inflicting on those who work in this building. We must have the new building in order that hon. Members may effectively serve democracy and the people. We must have it so that we can provide for those who work here the services and the conditions to which they are entitled and which the law anywhere else would demand that they have.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I shall concentrate my comments entirely on the requirement of the new parliamentary building. During the three years I have been here I have nothing but praise for the marvellous way in which the staff work to support our work. I also have great praise for the work which hon. Members are able to carry out in the appalling conditions in which they find themselves.
It must be said that in this House we have a most inefficient business system. Much of that reflects entirely from the poor premises in which we are working. Many hon. Members have said that the conditions in which we work would not be tolerated in industry or commerce. Some hon. Members have said that they have even been driven to thinking that they might have to leave this place because of their inability to carry out properly the job which they have been sent here to do.
This is about the only institution in the whole of the country which works the crazy hours which are those of the Americans. We work nine to five system which entirely reflects the American approach, but with a five-hour time gap. That is an extraordinary situation. We have three options. First, we can proceed with all haste with the selection which has been offered to us. Secondly—I do not offer this option entirely lightheartedly—we could cut the number of hon. Members by half and use the resources available. Thirdly, we could do nothing at all. That might appeal to some people.
I was disturbed to hear the ease with which my hon. Friend the Member for


Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is able to deal with his constituents. I find that I—and I am sure that many hon. Members are in the same position—have a lot more to do than my hon. Friend suggested he found necessary.
Some hon. Members have said that because the competition has taken place we must accept its findings. That is not necessarily so. The competition has illustrated the contentions which are present in the House. We should not be turned aside from rejecting the judge's decision if that is what we want to do. I cannot support the brown edifice which is proposed even if it reflects a particular style of achitecture.
One of the failures of architecture in London in the latter half of the 20th century has been that architects have not seen their designs in the environment in which other people have to look at them or listen to them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has shared with me the experience of being on the Terrace and listening to Big Ben at eight o'clock in the evening, which is now at double time, pealing 16 times. That is an example of how a building has been set up with no consideration of its effect upon others.
Without doubt the building is needed and the need is two fold. We must have a better business base. Our credibility is suffering because of the inadequate conditions in which we work for the public.
Secondly, reform in the business of the House is as essential as a new building in which to work. We work crazy hours and must look at ourselves in the context of trying to improve our work output and not in terms of the facilities we are seeking to give ourselves. I support the motion for a new building but I am much against the venture proposed.

9.25 p.m.

Dr. John Gilbert: I am one of the lucky Members who has a new office over the Tea Room, and I am grateful for it because the last one was in Bridge Street, where we had one outside line shared among eight Members. I have a marvellous new office. There are only a few things wrong with it. The ventilation is appalling and no one can tolerate it in the temperatures of the last

few weeks. The telephone system does not work properly, and if it did it still would not be adequate as one line is not enough. If one places a long-distance call, one cannot take any incoming call until it has reached one. The design of the furniture is abysmal. The files will not fit in their cabinets. Labels for them fall off every time one shuts the door. The drawers for pens and rubbers are not deep enough. When one puts a bound HANSARD——

Mr. Roger Moate: Where did the hon. Gentleman get a HANSARD?

Dr. Gilbert: —into the bookshelves upright, one has to take one of the shelves out, so that one loses a whole shelf.
In addition, there is the question of privacy. We do not need Watergate to bug each other's calls. It will not be news to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) that I can hear his telephone conversations, because he can hear mine through the wall in the next office. Yet this is a new office building. It is a scandal. Of course we need the new building. What is more, I give notice to the Leader of the House that not only do we need it but that it will not be adequate when it comes.
Several hon. Members have extolled the virtues of the new building, saying how admirable it will be for us to have research facilities. But there will be no space in it for research assistants for hon. Members.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is not here because I found some of his arguments seductive. But we are going to need in time the whole of that site properly to service hon. Members. We are going to need proper research facilities, and there is no sign of our getting them. The proposed building is only a halfway house. I have no hesitation in saying that I can defend this expenditure to my constituents as the best investment this country can make for me to defend their interests in this place.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Man Haselhurst: The opponents of the new parliamentary building fall into three categories. The first category is those


who believe that there is no need for further accommodation. They fail to appreciate or to be tolerant of the fact that hon. Members these days are perhaps finding a different work style and see their job in a different rôle from the way in which others have done. It has to be acknowledged by those who say that there is no need for extra facilities that there are other hon. Members who do believe that in order to do their job properly these facilities must be provided, and if those who do not believe them necessary are going to deny them to the House as a whole because of their own feelings, then they are denying them to their colleagues who sincerely believe that their job can only be done in a different way.
I cannot see any danger of a so-called "destruction" of Parliament as we know it in being kept away, if we are, from the Smoking Room and other facilities. Indeed, if I can do my constituency case work more efficiently, I can spend more time in such places.
There is a rising load of casework. New Members coming into the House are finding that more and more of their time is taken up in dealing with constituency cases. If any hon. Member thinks it is too much time I say that it is an absolutely disgraceful comment to make upon the fact that there are voters who put us here in the belief that they will get some personal attention from us.
There are those who say that the cost is not justified. There is surely some confusion here because it is not a matter of the cost of this building. It can be safely assumed that any other alternative parliamentary building which may at some stage be put up will cost at least as much if not more. If we do not have a parliamentary building it is inconceivable that the Government, if not Parliament, will not be responsible for whatever is built on the site across the road. Therefore, a large sum of public money will be expended.
The argument is not so much about cost in this context as about usage of the site. If there is ever to be a new parliamentary building that is the only sensible site for it. There are those who say that the cost may be justified but surely not at this time when the public are concerned about inflation and so on. There

never will be a suitable time for any kind of expenditure involving parliamentary work. I say to those people that the public as a whole would support expenditure for this express purpose because the more I talk to my constituents the more I find they are truly appalled that we do not have basic facilities to answer their correspondence efficiently and quickly.
I do not believe there will be any argument from the public that we would be spending money on ourselves. We would be spending money to serve our constituents better. That is the complete answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) who was worried about this.
The other category are those who say "Not this building". It has been pointed out already that it is hard to see how we could ever find agrement on a particular building. Wherever matters of art and design are concerned there are bound to be differences of opinion. The only way we can get something on which the vast majority of the House would agree would be if we adopt a lowest common denominator approach. That would be the last possible way of deciding this thing sensibly.
We could go on forever spending money on expedients which no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) pointed out would mount up into considerable sums anyway. It is only natural that every Member will not put his personal feelings to the test in such a matter. There must be some regard for architectural opinion as a whole. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) condemned experts. I usually go to experts as a touchstone when I am only a layman.
If I am ill I go to a doctor not because I believe that all doctors are always right but because I believe on the whole that they will be more right than my next-door neighbour. Therefore, I will go to architects to listen to what they say and will take that into account. If I found that architectural opinion as a whole, and architects are a diverse group of people, was against this building I would be much influenced by that. The opposite is true. The bulk of architectural opinion is in favour of this building and that is what certainly guides me. There are many outstanding features to


this building not the least of which is nearness.
It is the nearness factor which to my mind completely destroys the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) with the various alternatives he suggested. We can only try to take a relevant and right approach in deciding this matter. How can Parliament best decide its public duty in a matter of this kind? It has already given mature consideration to it and a compliment should be paid to the Services Committee which has not so far been congratulated on its splendid job of work. Parliament has a duty with regard to Parliament Square.
Parliament has conducted an international competition within the Commonwealth with distinguished assessors working within prescribed rules. If we veto the product of this procedure what more objective way can we discover for determining what building shall be bequeathed to future generations? If we have another duty it is surely to provide the people's representatives with facilities which enable them to do the job which the public requires of them. We would be gravely mistaken if we did not read the signs when the public are increasingly demanding better services of us. If we pass these motions tonight we can never fairly be accused of failing to conduct this business properly.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: Most hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House agree that we need better facilities to do the job we were sent here to do. I support both motions. The probability is that the most modern building the architects might devise will be out of date in 10 years' time. All our great buildings have been objects of fierce debate, and reasons similar to those we have heard advanced tonight have been put forward in favour of or in opposition to them.
The most sensible course for the House to take is that recommended by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) which is to support both motions. He said that there would be left to us a degree of flexibility in shaping the new building internally and that there could be further discussions. That is the safe, sure and sensible way to proceed.
In recent years we have heard from our constituents, the newspapers and the television about the growing threat of bureaucracy. As Members of Parliament we have to see middle-grade and senior civil servants and chief officers of town halls. Those are the people the Press and television refer to as "the faceless bureaucrats". When we in turn visit them we discover that their facilities are far superior to our own. It ill behoves us to cavil and complain about bureaucrats and civil servants if we do not have the courage to ask for similar facilities to do our job. That is the challenge.
I detect here and there a frightened attitude. Hon. Members wonder what their constituents will say. Our job is to lead, to have the guts and courage to stand up and say that, if our constituents want us to do our job properly, they must support our demands—which I consider to be minimal—for the facilities necessary for us to carry out the job.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, although some parts of his speech left me a little worried. He wanted the building to be constructed of old stone. I see the attraction of that, but I remember the late Nye Bevan saying that the trouble with the present structure of the House of Commons and its surroundings was that it more resembled a church than a workshop. The building proposed will he a modern workshop, as it should be, and not a religious construction, and that is one reason why I am in favour of it.
Other Parliaments have been mentioned. Let hon. Members go to see other Parliaments. Let them see the Bundestag, the French Parliament and others. Let them see the staff that is provided for Members of Parliament which is vastly superior in numbers to our staff. The only advantage that the British people have is in the better calibre of their Members of Parliament.
I want to have the best of both worlds. When we have the building and have modified it to suit us better, we shall have an opportunity to do our job efficiently and with dignity. With better provision and more efficient working conditions we shall be enabled to examine the problems that afflict our constituents, the nation and the world. Since we are living in a scientific, technological age we shall need


too the proper tools to do our job and to carry out our responsibilities on behalf of our constituents.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I think it is true to say that the last person to speak before the winding-up speech is always extremely unpopular. Therefore, because I wish to support both motions, I should be even more unpopular if I were to prolong arguments which have already been put before the House.
If the debate had gone the other way I would have been culling, in a desperate fashion, the thirty-fifth or forty-fifth reason for having the new building as suggested by the architect, namely that in wartime one could always use it as a hospital. But I have not been obliged to do that because the debate has gone the other way.
The debate has shown beyond doubt that the House is impatient with further delay. I believe that the House will vote by a great majority in favour of both motions. In spite of the long history of this, at times, sad and depressing matter, this debate has been inspiriting. This matter has been before the House in various forms since 1964 when it was under the guidance of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I believe the House has now come to realise that the delay so far has been positively damaging and has not enhanced our reputation in the world or with the British public.
It is timorous, unjustified and untrue to say that the public has the kind of regard for Members of Parliament that it is not prepared to support a sensible amount of expenditure on a new modern building—a building which I happen to think is one of the most brilliant designs put out in recent years by skilled architects.
I believe that the public will accept the decision of the House this evening. The whole nature of Parliament in modern Britain is changing. We are passing from the old style orator such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—and I pay tribute to him—to the modern technician who works on behalf of his constituents in an effective and functional way. There may be some aspects of this transforma-

tion which we regret, but we must face the reality of modern times. Not all politics is bound up with grandiose issues and matters of grand design, frontier-crossing issues in the larger sense, but a great deal of modern politics involves the nitty-gritty, unglamorous side of representing individual constituents with their many problems.
I could not return to my constituents and say that I voted against a modern and inspiring concept just because it cost a reasonable amount of money—reasonable, I must emphasise, if no further unnecessary delay is incurred. I could not go back to them and say that I voted that way because the old traditional features of Parliament must be retained to the exclusion of all the modern exigencies of today's Parliament. If we compare our facilities with those of modern Parliaments throughout the world, we surely cannot vote against these motions.
Let me go into a few figures—and I hope that in working out the mathematics I have included the requisite number of noughts. If the building, with modifications, will encompass 1,200 persons—450 Members of Parliament, 450 secretaries and additional staff with extra rooms, then at a cost of say £12 million, give or take £500,000, the total annual rental per person would be of the order of £12,000. Assuming, say, 400 square feet for each office unit in the building, that would represent a rental per square foot of £1·25. That compares with £5, £6, £7 or £8 in the West End and more in the City of London. Do not let us be conned into thinking that the economics of this proposition are unreasonable. In my view they are extremely reasonable.
The public will be watching this debate with interest, not least because of recent problems affecting the body politic and their representatives which have manifested themselves to the public. Those who take a keen interest in these matters and those of our constituents who need our help in a welfare sense will be watching the debate to see whether their parliamentarians come to a courageous, realistic and long overdue decision.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Lord President wishes to catch my eye at 12 minutes to the hour. Mr. Raison.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I speak only because I belong to a very small group which does not think that we need a new building but which rather likes the one before us.
I do not believe in the argument that the case for a building of this size has been made out. I accept fully the right of every hon. Member to have a room of his own if he wishes. But I do not believe that every hon. Member wants a room of his own. I do not, for one. Equally I do not believe that even if every hon. Member wants a room of his own he will want an additional room for his secretary. Many of us share secretaries, and that practice is likely to continue.
I accept the argument that there is a risk that, if we lock ourselves up in little rooms on the other side of Bridge Street, we shall detract from our principal function as Members of Parliament. I have been a Member of this House only since 1970—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] In my experience our weakness is not so much how we handle our constituency correspondence as our failure to thrash out the great issues which need thrashing out. It is curious how much time we spend on other matters when we should be talking between ourselves about policies of great importance. We spend far too much time on the mechanics of politics.
If we commit ourselves to a new building, my view is that the one proposed has certain considerable merits. I have always found Parliament Square curiously disappointing. The Palace of Westminster is one of the great buildings in the country. Westminster Abbey is a fine building. But, strangely, the square as a whole is very much less than the sum of its parts.
I cannot see that this design would be an objectionable intrusion. I believe that the architects have managed to combine a real strength in their building. It has vigour and character and it is greatly superior to the second design. What is more, it has a touch of elegance and style which is appealing.
For all those reasons I intend to vote against the first motion and to support the second one.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Prior: With the leave of the House I should like to speak for a second time.
It seems from the general tenor of the debate that has taken place that the argument on the first motion—that a new parliamentary building is required—has been largely accepted. Few of the speeches, except for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the speeches of one or two other hon. Members, have been against the concept of a new parliamentary building.
My hon. Friend's argument was one that one heard much more 14 or 15 years ago in the House than one hears today. There is no doubt that the weight of business which hon. Members must conduct for their constituents and the many other interests they serve is much greater than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
Even if hon. Members were left out of consideration, it would not be fair to go on asking our secretaries, the Officers of the House and others who serve us to work in the conditions in which they operate today.
I hope that as a temporary measure the Norman Shaw (North) building will help out. I tell hon. Members who were not here at the beginning of the debate that the opportunity that Norman Shaw (North) would provide over a number of years until a new building were available would certainly ease the pressures here considerably.
In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), the reason why we had not gone ahead with installing a modern telephone service in Bridge Street is simply that, until we decide whether we are to pull Bridge Street down, it is a pointless exercise. If we are to pull Bridge Street down, I should hate to go to the expense of installing new telephone cables and a new telephone system there for a matter of a year or two or three years.
What the House must consider is whether it should be the Spence-Webster building or something else or, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), whether it should be more than one. That is the


issue before us tonight. Having listened to all the debate, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which there will ever be unanimity. If the second motion is defeated tonight, it is hard to see how any other building will ever find acceptance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford), in an excellent and constructive speech, said that he was worried that we might tie ourselves too tightly to the new Spence-Webster building. I take the point fully that over the next year or two there is bound to be modification and it would be wrong to tie the hands of the architects to that extent. My hon. Friend was right to warn us about throwing over a competitive designed building. It will be difficult to find any architect of repute who, after reading about this debate and the debates that have gone on in the Chamber, not only recently, but going way back to 1834 or 1835, would want to take on this job.
Some hon. Members have asked whether we need the recreational facilities. If we are to build a new building, let us build properly. If it means that we are to have some squash courts and a swimming pool, it may help the figures of some hon. Members. Therefore, on the whole I am in favour of doing the job properly or not at all.
If one is fair about the costings, the cost per head will be about £15,000, putting the building at £11·5 million and the land at £7 million. That is about the same cost per head as the cost of housing a civil servant in the same part of London. I do not think that there are any grounds for saying that it is unduly extravagant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman), the hon. Member for White-haven (Dr. John A. Cunningham) and other hon. Members expressed their concern about the delay over the next two years. This is an important point. During the next two years we would first develop plans for the scheme. We would plan and start work on new accommodation for the police from Cannon Row. We would prepare to start demolition by getting the site emptied. It would enable

London Transport to complete preplanning of the new tube station and it would enable the GLC to complete plans for raising the level of Bridge Street. So the time would not be entirely wasted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) were very critical about the materials to be used in the new building. I must tell them that stone has been extensively used in the parliamentary building design, in the podium and at street level generally. The bronze, glass and metal are all of high quality and modern materials. The cost of good glass and metal would be about the same as that of good quality stone. As far as I can find out at this hour of the night, no plastic would be used in the construction.
Some hon. Members have argued that a new building would remove interest in the Chamber. That was one of the points of one of my hon. Friend's who said that he felt that we should tend to shut ourselves up in small rooms away from the Chamber. I do not believe that the main reason for the declining attendance in the Chamber and at our debates is that Members are shutting themselves away in their rooms and offices. I believe the chief reason is that Members are much busier and have many more responsibilities.
There may be another reason too. It has been brought out in this debate. If we could confine our speeches to the length of the speeches we have had tonight—and we have had 25 speeches in there hours—it could possibly be that hon. Members would come to the Chamber and take part in debate. If we did this our debates would not go on so long and there would be more time for hon. Members to do other things.
These are matters which the House will have to consider in due course. To my mind it is not only necessary that we modernise our parliamentary buildings, but we should modernise our parliamentary procedures too. We have an important decision to make this evening. It has been a very good debate. The matter is now one for the House to decide.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 68.

Division No. 172.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Ford, Ben
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fortescue, Tim
Luce, R. N.


Armstrong, Ernest
Fowler, Norman
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacArthur, Ian


Atkinson, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gardner, Edward
Machin, George


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Batsford, Brian
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McLaren, Martin


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maclennan, Robert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Benyon, W.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David


Bishop, E. S.
Gray, Hamish
Mason Rt Hn Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gurden, Harold



Booth, Albert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Money, Ernie


Buchan, Norman
Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Havers, Michael
More, Jasper


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Carmichael, Neil
Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Moyle, Roland


Channon, Paul
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Clegg, Walter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth Sutton)


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Coombs, Derek
Hunt, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hunter Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
James, David
Perry, Ernest G.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner Greville
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Crouch, David
Jenkins. Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Prescott, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
John, Brynmor
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)



Davies. Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Rt Hn. Francis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Radice, Giles


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham.S.)



Deakins, Eric

Redmond, Robert


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Doig, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dormand, J. D.
Kaufman, Gerald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Drayson, G. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Richard, Ivor


Driberg, Tom
Knight, Mrs, Jill
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Knox, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dykes, Hugh
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, Tom
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Rowlands, Ted


English, Michael
Lawson, George
Russell, Sir Ronald


Evans, Fred
Leonard, Dick
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)




Shelton, William (Clapham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George


Shersby, Michael
Taverne, Dick
Ward, Dame Irene


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tebbit, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Watkins, David


Sillars, James
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weatherill, Bernard


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wiggin, Jerry


Small, William
Tinn, James
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tope, Graham
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Spearing, Nigel
Torney, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Speed, Keith
Trew, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Stallard, A. W.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Steel, David
Varley, Eric G.
Worsley, Marcus


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Vickers, Dame Joan



Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wainwright, Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek



Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wall, Patrick





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Green, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Awdry, Daniel
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grylls, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Raison, Timothy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biffen, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, John
Iremonger, T. L,
Ridsdale, Julian


Body, Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bray, Ronald
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Soref, Harold


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Urwin, T. W.


Eyre, Reginald
Milne, Edward
Waddington, David


Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Normanton, Tom



Fookes, Miss Janet
Onslow. Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foot, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Patrick Cormack and Mr. Roger Moate.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Pardoe, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the construction of a new parliamentary building in due course.

Motion made, and Question,

That this House approves the construction of the proposed new Spence and Webster Parliamentary building in due course.—[Mr. Prior.]

put forthwith pursuant to order.

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 144.

Division No. 173.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Brown, Hugh D. (Q'gow, Provan)
Deakins, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Astor, John
Buchan, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dempsey, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carlisle, Mark
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Drayson, G. B.


Bell, Ronald
Clerk, David (Colne Valley)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cockeram, Eric
Eadie, Alex


Benyon, W.
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, Nicholss (Pembroke)


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, Tom


Bishop, E. S.
Coombs, Derek
Evans, Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ewing, Harry


Booth, Albert
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Faulds, Andrew


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Crouch, David
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fowler, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)




Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Garrett, W. E.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Roper, John


Gilbert, Dr. John
Luce, R. N.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Golding, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rost, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rowlands, Ted


Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacArthur, Ian
Sandelson, Neville


Gurden, Harold
McBride, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamling, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sillars, James


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sinclair, Sir George


Harper, Joseph
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Small, William


Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hawkins, Paul
Millan, Bruce
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Speed, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Steel, David


Hill, S. James A. (South'pton, Test)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Horam, John
Molloy, William
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Money, Ernie
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morrison, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hunt, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


James, David
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tope, Graham


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur
Tugendhat, Christopher


John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wall, Patrick


Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John
Watkins, David


Kerr, Russell
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilkinson, John


Knox, David
Radice, Giles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lamborn, Harry
Raison, Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lamont, Norman
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Worsley, Marcus


Lane, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)



Latham, Arthur
Rees, Peter (Dover)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lawson, George
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. James Wellbeloved


Leonard, Dick
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Richard, Ivor





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Humphrey
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Jopling, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eyre, Reginald
Judd, Frank


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Biggs-Davison, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kimball, Marcus


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kinnock, Neil


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bray, Ronald
Foot, Michael
Lipton, Marcus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fox, Marcus
Machin, George


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mackie, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McLaren, Martin


Channon, Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gray, Hamish
Maddan, Martin


Clegg, Walter
Green, Alan
Marquand, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marten, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cormack, Patrick
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Milne, Edward


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Havers, Sir Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Heffer, Eric S.
Monro, Hector


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hiley. Joseph
More, Jasper







Murray, Ronald King
Russell, Sir Ronald
Urwin, T. W.


Murton, Oscar
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


O'Malley, Brian
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George


Onslow, Cranley
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Skinner, Dennis
Warren, Kenneth


Pardoe, John
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)



Ridsdale, Julian
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Trew, Peter
Mr. Roger Moate and Mr. Nigel Spearing.


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin



Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the construction of the proposed new Spence and Webster Parliamentary building in due course.

ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move,
That the Medicines (Feeding Stuffs Additives) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.
The order is intended to correct an anomaly in the Medicines Act 1968 to enable us to make comprehensive regulations relating to the labelling of medicated animal feeding stuffs. This is a complicated and technical matter which I shall do my best to make clear to the House. The Act contains provisions relating to the general control of medicated animal feeding stuffs. Medicated animal feeding stuffs are those in which a medicinal additive has been incorporated.
The additive may be a medicinal product as defined in Section 130 of the Act, or it may be a substance which, although not a medicinal product as defined, nevertheless has been incorporated in a feeding stuff for a medicinal purpose. This latter expression is also defined in Section 130 but the provisions for general control are in Sections 40–42 of the Act and are outside the scope of the order. In addition to the general provisions, Ministers have power under the Act to introduce further controls over medicated animal feeding stuffs, and the order deals with the proper application of these additional controls.
Naturally, it is desirable that they should apply to medicated animal feeding stuffs irrespective of whether the medicinal additive is a medicinal product or a substance added for medicinal purposes. It might help to make this difference clear if I take copper and its derivative, copper salt, as an example. Copper is not a medicinal product but as a copper salt it is frequently added to pig feed as a growth promoter. Under the Act such an additive is for a medicinal purpose.
The agriculture Ministers propose shortly to make regulations pertaining to the labelling of medicated feeding stuffs and leaflets supplied with such products.

These regulations will be made under the provisions of Sections 85 and 86 as applied by Section 90. This latter section provides that Sections 85 and 86 shall have effect in relation to feeding stuffs in which medicinal products have been incorporated. But it makes no provision for their effect in relation to feeding stuffs in which substances that are not medicinal products—and I gave copper salt as a growth promoter as an example—have been incorporated for a medicinal purpose.
Because of this deficiency in Section 90 any regulations under Sections 85 and 86 relating to the labelling and so on of feeding stuffs will apply only to feeding stuffs containing medicinal products and copper salt incorporated for a medicinal purpose. The same would be true of Section 87, the use of which is not in immediate prospect. I believe that section deals with containers. The order will remedy this deficiency and it is being brought about in this way.
Section 104 empowers Ministers, in this instance the agriculture Ministers, to apply specific provisions of the Act to articles and substances which, although not medicinal products, are manufactured, sold, supplied, imported or exported for use wholly or partly for a medicinal purpose.
The provisions being applied by the order are those of Sections 90 and 91. I have not referred to Section 91 before. It deals with offences under Part V of the Act, which includes the other sections we are discussing. Clearly, therefore, we need Section 91 as well as Section 90. The substances and articles to which these provisions are to be applied by the order are those other than medicinal products which are intended to be incorporated in animal feeding stuffs for a medicinal purpose.
As the Act requires, a number of organisations representing interests likely to be substantially affected have been fully consulted, not only on this order but on the proposed labelling regulations, and have raised no objections. The Veterinary Products Committee, estab. lished under Section 4 of the Act to advise Ministers on veterinary medicines, recommends that the order be made.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Are radioactive isotopes included within the scope of the definition the hon. Lady has given? I know that the use of radioactive isotopes as an additive in feeds is very rare, but it is conceivable that they could be used for veterinary purposes, and I should be interested to know whether they would count as being for medicinal purposes within the meaning of the order. I do not ask for an answer tonight.

Mrs. Fenner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I will see that he gets the answer in written form.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Originally I had not intended to say anything, but I was willing to speak for a few moments while the hon. Lady and her officials began to look up the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes). However, she does not have to look it up now.
I thank the hon. Lady for her explanation of the order. We do not object to the order, which arises from a Labour Government Act. It will be useful and helpful, and she explained it very well. However, there are certain unforeseen things in the future, not least some of the new Common Market regulations, to which we may pay rather more attention.
On an unusually happy note for the pair of us, I thank the hon. Lady and her staff.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Medicines (Feeding Stuffs Additives) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

MAENDY AND BROFISKIN QUARRIES (CHEMICAL WASTE)

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of the pollution of Maendy and Brofiskin quarries. My gratitude would be somewhat greater if someone from the

Welsh Office had turned up to reply to the debate.

Mr. Mark Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that my hon. Friend should be called upon to begin an Adjournment debate in the absence of the relevant Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I did not see that the Minister was not here. The Chair must deprecate very strongly any hon. Member raising a matter on the Adjournment in the absence of the Minister. [Interruption.] I believe that the Minister has arrived.

Mr. John: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall recommence what I have to say in the light of the Minister's presence.
Since the categorical statement by the Secretary of State a fortnight ago on the subject of pollution at Maendy and Brofiskin quarries, the persistence of doubt and worry must be viewed in the light of the history of the case.
Although I had already become involved by then, the first public article in the Western Mail on 21st January 1972 stated that certain farmers at Maendy and Brofiskin had received ex gratia payments from the waste disposal firm concerned for matters which included the death of animals. That hardly suggests that there is no cause for concern.
When I read in tonight's South Wales Echo that traces of PCB have been found in the milk of animals grazing at Maendy quarries the alarm must be compounded. A number of journals such as last week's New Scientist have commented upon the way in which the Welsh Office has approached the matter.
During Question Time I have been accused of sensationalism by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales. On the many occasions when I have raised these matters in debate, by Questions, and with the Welsh Office Ministers in private, I have avoided being alarmist, as witness the fact that there have been no headlines on this matter until recently. The Secretary of State's language, therefore, is curious.
The recent Welsh Office statements on pollution, such as the one on TOCP, are vindictive and an insult to those whom I represent. Worse, however, was the Secretary of State's use of parliamentary privilege to attack Mr. Douglas Gowan, one of the consultants in this matter, by suggesting that his involvement in litigation would somehow lead him to doctor his results. No expert in litigation does that, as the Secretary of State should know.
I have heard reports, too, of a Press conference in which one of the Welsh Office's civil servants launched another attack upon Mr. Gowan. The intervention of a civil servant in that way is deplorable. Mr. Gowan may be wrong but he is not——

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to give me the details of that matter after the debate?

Mr. John: Mr. Gowan may be wrong but he is supported by Professor Clarke, who is an eminent veterinarian, Professor Platonow, who is a world expert on pollution, the ICI laboratories and the Sunday Times Insight team. Such work can be criticised, as the New Scientist criticised it last week, but such criticism should be met by facts and not by scurrility.
The fact is that there is still a conflict of results. The Welsh Office's refusal to consent to splitting samples and thus to bridge the conflict is regrettable. There is a refusal to consent because of litigation. It appears that the Welsh Office has not yet realised that both parties to the litigation should receive a split sample as that would mean that fairness is assured. Without that the conflict will remain.
I must ask the Minister some specific questions. First, from what spots were the samples of water taken? Were they taken from surface pools in the quarries or from rainwater? Were they taken from the Maendy Road or from the farmers' land? What analysing techniques have been used for both the water and the milk supplies? All who know the subject agree that analytical techniques are difficult. If Mr. Gowan's findings are to be criticised because he used chromolography unsupported by mass spectrometry, what about the tech-

nique mentioned last Thursday by Anthony Tucker, the science correspondent of The Guardian, of continuous monitoring?
In the middle of such a dry spell of weather and with such difficult chemicals it may be that this is the only technique which is valuable for the detection of PCB and TOCP. Is this or any similar technique being used by the Welsh Office? The Welsh Office's inability to confirm to Mr. Tucker the techniques in use is unfortunate.
We have today received some startling news on the subject. When I asked a Question on 11th June 1973 I was assured by the Secretary of State for Wales that the Public Analyst's Department had reported that milk samples were free from PCB. That is one of the chief concerns because PCB is a toxic chemical. If it is in cows milk it can be transmitted. The Secretary of State was categoric in his denial that PCBs existed in milk.
Tonight we have the news reported in the South Wales Echo—because I am not favoured with Welsh Office statements these days—that negligible traces of PCB have now been found in milk samples but that they were not dangerous. There is all the difference in the world between saying that there are no PCBs present in milk and saying that they are present but not dangerous.
We are entitled therefore to know to what depth the original analysis went. Did it go below two parts per million, for example? If not, why not, because the effect of this is, to a community already confused by the plethora of different results, to question or to call into question all the results upon which the Welsh Office is now relying, because if they can be wrong on this crucial issue of PCBs in cows' milk, they can be wrong on other such issues.
The difficulty and technique of interpretation and the inexperience of many public analysts can only be met by, first of all, the splitting of the samples, secondly, by setting up an agreed point of sampling, and, thirdly, by the setting up of agreed analytical procedures. I hope that Purle and the farmers' representatives would agree to this. It is absolutely imperative in view of the latest evidence that the Welsh Office should agree to and initiate the setting up of such agreed procedures.
I understand that Mr. Gowan is willing to release to the Water Pollution Research Laboratory all the samples he has taken which are stored at the ICI laboratory. I hope that no amour proper or personal animus will prevent the Welsh Office from taking up this offer. One characteristic, besides persistence, of many of these chemicals is their ability to pollute ground, the roots of the grass and the grass itself. This clearly can have a harmful effect upon animal life which grows in that area.
The American environmental pollution agencies and ICI have analysed some soil from the area and the results are disturbing. What are the results of the analysis of the soil taken by the Government? Are they yet available, and, if so, what concentration of PCB do they show in the soil at the moment?
Since the Government place great reliance upon their own experts, including the Glamorgan county analyst, can they explain themselves in the context of the statement in his report of 13th June 1972 that the effluents coming out of the quarries should undergo a system of purification?
Why is it that the Welsh Office has not intervened in the talks between the local authorities and the waste disposal firm to accelerate such a process of agreement on the purification of these effluents? Why has a year dragged by since the report was made without any purification system having been installed at the quarries? Why has six months dragged by since I raised the matter in the debate on Welsh affairs on 19th December 1972 without any action?
That is a worrying feature, but I re-emphasise that the most worrying feature of all is that in the space of a fortnight assurances which were given by the Secretary State in the most categorical terms have had to be revised. Therefore the alarm and concern felt by the county——

Mr. Gibson-Watt: indicated dissent.

Mr. John: The Minister of State shakes his head. I repeat, in case he is unable to take the point I made last time, there is all the difference in the world between saying that there is no PCB in cows' milk and saying that there is PCB but there are negligible quantities present at

the moment. I will say why. PCBs are truly cumulative and those PCBs within the cow will never be got rid of. They will only be added to in subsequent drinking and grazing at these polluted quarries.
I believe that the general public in the area wants first of all temporary measures designed to make the quarry safe in the short term. It wants the erection of warning notices and fences to prevent animals and humans contacting the polluted areas either by accident or by carelessness. The Secretary of State agreed in an answer to a Written Question of mine last week that he would hold talks with the local authorities to see whether agreement could be reached as to the erection of these notices and fences. I hope that these talks will be brought to a rapid and fruitful conclusion. I hope that the Welsh Office and local authorities will agree between them to the erection of these signs and fences as soon as possible.
More important, since PCB traces are to be found in milk, it is now imperative to ban the supply of milk from these farms. I realise that this is a serious step for the farmers and would obviously have to be the subject of compensation. When PCB, a known toxic agent, has been proved to be present in milk, in however small a quantity, we cannot gamble with the health of people. It is, therefore, imperative that milk supplies from these farms be banned forthwith. I hope that the Minister of State, who was reported in tonight's newspaper to be giving a negative reply to this debate, will give an assurance on this point.
The second thing which the public wants is a thorough, speedy and co-ordinated investigation of these quarries. For example, are Maendy and Brofiskin to be two of the quarries to be included in the study of quarries and toxic waste dumps now being undertaken by the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: indicated assent.

Mr. John: I accept the Minister's assurance with gratitude. It would be monstrous had they been excluded. In the same article in the Western Mail last week the Department of the Environment was unable to confirm that Maendy quarry was so included.
The belief is growing that we have been suffering in the area from a demarcation dispute between the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, with the former taking a much more serious view of the situation than the latter. Be that as it may, what I demand is an end to the present fragmentation of investigation, with its plethora of Departments involved and its lack of first-class analytical techniques. Instead I demand a joint departmental attack by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office on the problem, using the best people and the best techniques available, including all those who may be of help in tracing and dealing with these chemicals. So complex is this area of new chemicals and techniques that nothing else will do.
The third matter upon which we want an assurance is that whatever is necessary to be done will be done by the Welsh Office. If investigations reveal a serious problem we want it to be put right quickly. It is for experts to decide how it should be done, but I believe that sealing the quarry is necessary now in view of these undoubtedly toxic chemicals in the dump. The removal of the tip would leave toxicity behind and, therefore, sealing of the tip is necessary.
Also I want the assurance that Welsh Office finance will enable any necessary action to be taken without delay. I know that it is popular to say that whoever is responsible for the pollution should pay to clear it. That is a fine concept but it ignores the fact that in this case a squabble over paying may drag on for months, even years. In so urgent a case of pollution we cannot hold back the making safe of these quarries while such a squabble about responsibility goes on.
These are just a few of the problems still to be resolved. I emphasise that the Minister of State is responsible both for public health in certain aspects in Wales and for the environment. Vital as is public health, the undoubted fact is that the presence of these toxic dumps in the constituency is a gross pollution of these areas. The Welsh Office lays stress upon the public health aspect, and I think it right to do so. It is that emphasis which compels me to seek answers to the questions I have raised. But how it deals with the environmental aspect will pro-

vide a better test of its determination to preserve Wales from future environmental rape. It still has time to make a better start than it has done so far. I hope that the Minister will announce tonight steps which will enable it to recover from this bad start and provide action which will be satisfactory to the Welsh Office and the authorities and reassuring to the people of the localities concerned.

10.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Waft): I am sure the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) for raising this important subject and will sympathise with him in the fact that between 1965 and 1970 a very large amount of chemical waste was dumped in quarries in his constituency. It is left to me and the Welsh Office and others concerned to clear up the matter.
I intend first to answer some of the questions which the hon. Gentleman asked. As I have only 13 minutes in which to reply, I am sure he will forgive me if I do not answer all his questions. If he is in any doubt at all about what is happening in the Welsh Office or whether we are prepared to tell him what is going on, let him come and ask me as the Minister responsible. I shall be only too pleased to tell him what is happening and to explain to him the full picture.

Mr. John: rose——

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair speech and I hope to give him a fair answer.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether tests had taken place. Tests have taken place in running water on the verge of roadways, on farmers' land and also further into farmers' land, not just on the side of the road. He asked whether the presence of PCBs in milk was less than two parts in a million. The limit of detection was 0·02 parts per million, and I hope that that will reassure him. Thirdly, there is no question of lack of finance. I will explain later the various authorities which have been dealing with this difficult problem.
In March 1972 the Welsh Office was approached by Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre Rural District Council which was concerned about the fact that its analysis and that of the Glamorgan River


Authority of samples of water from the quarries showed much lower levels of contaminants than those of the consultants acting for some of the farmers in the area in the preparation of litigation against the waste disposal firm responsible for the dumping. The council expressed particular concern about the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—reported to it by the consultants.
Following a meeting at the Welsh Office involving officials from the Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre RDC, Glamorgan County Council and Glamorgan River Authority, the Welsh Office sought advice from the Toxic Waste Division of the Directorate General of Water Engineering in London, which serves both the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment.
After visiting the quarries it was decided to arrange for the laboratory of the Government Chemist to analyse water samples for the presence of PCBs. This was done in June and November, and, while PCBs were determined, they were at levels which our advisers considered to be of negligible toxicological significance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these findings were communicated to him.
In the light of all the available evidence, including that reported by the consultant acting for farmers in the area, the Government Departments concerned decided earlier this year that it would be desirable to undertake a more extensive water sampling programme at the two quarries. It was decided that the samples of water should be split between the laboratory of the Government Chemist and that of the Glamorgan River Authority to validate these analytical techniques used. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this was right. It was also decided that sampling to determine the possible effects of chemicals on the food chain should be undertaken too.
The water sampling took place at the beginning of April and about 400 determinations were made for 20 possible chemical contaminants. The results from the two laboratories were very comparable. Most results were below the limits of detection but where chloride, iron, phenols, some organic acids and

nitrogen-containing compounds were shown to be present, there was no health risk.
The Welsh Office has also asked the Water Pollution Research Laboratory to make investigations at Brofiskin and Maendy because the laboratory is undertaking a long-term fundamental research programme into the problem of percolate from tips. The laboratory has identified PCBs, but the highest level recorded was 0·11 microgrammes per litre, which, I am advised, is toxicologically insignificant. [Interruption.] No. I will come to that in a moment. These tests have been taken in all sorts of weather over a period.
The water Pollution Research Laboratory programme of sampling and analysis will be continued and will include not only water but also stream sediments, soil and herbage; that is, it will be a complete environmental monitoring programme.
On the basis of the results of water sampling obtained by the river authority, the laboratory of the Government Chemist and the WPRL, the Ministry of Agriculture decided to carry out sampling on milk and animal tissue to test for possible contamination of the food chain—a decision that, I would stress, was taken before the current publicity given to the situation. I would also stress the word "possible" in relation to this contamination, because there was and is no evidence to suggest that the public are in any way being put at risk from milk or food products in the area.

Mr. John: That is not what it says here.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman can read as many newspapers as he likes; I am giving him the benefit of expert advice—

Mr. John: rose——

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I will not give way. I have a very short time in which to answer. If the hon. Gentleman bases his arguments on newspaper reports, then I think less of him than I did yesterday. What I am saying to him, if he will take my advice on this, which is based on professional advice, is that the public are in no way being put at risk by milk or food products from the area.

Mr. John: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he will tell me in the Welsh Office the evidence on which he says that the public are at risk, I will accept it, but if he has no evidence, he has no reason to make those remarks.
The Ministry of Agriculture sampling programme started on 11th June, and levels of PCBs have been shown to be below 0·02 parts per million—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have sedentary interjections.

Mr. John: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, no point of order arises. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must listen quietly to the Minister unless the Minister gives way to him.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The sampling began on 11th June and levels of PCBs have been shown to be below 0·02 parts per million of whole milk, a result which is in accordance with the findings of the Glamorgan public analyst, and which is negligible. No TOCP has been found. The Ministry of Agriculture has also arranged to analyse animal tissue for the presence of chemical contaminants, and this is now under way.
The House will forgive me for going into such great length on the steps which the Government have taken to keep the situation at these quarries under the closest review.
I should like to point out that the sampling and analytical work undertaken has been carried out under the most stringent and professional scientific conditions by highly qualified and competent analysts. The certified analyses are freely available to anyone interested, including the hon. Gentleman. The water sampling has been carried out by the Glamorgan River Authority in all conditions of weather for the past 4½ years.
Throughout, the Welsh Office and its expert advisers have taken into account findings reported by the consultant acting for farmers in the area in the preparation of litigation against the waste disposal firm concerned. These results have been assessed against the evidence collected by the Glamorgan River Authority and Government agencies.
Any alleged findings of new chemical contaminants made by the consultant have always been given the most careful consideration. For example, we received a report from him on 8th June about a finding of a toxic chemical known as TOCP at levels of 50 parts per million in water from Maendy. Immediately we asked the consultant for full analytical details and for confirmation of this value. This confirmation has not been forthcoming yet, but the Water Pollution Research Laboratory has since analysed samples of the effluent draining from the east and west of Maendy Quarry and last week reported it had found no trace of TOCP. The limit of detection was 0·1 parts per million. Nor has the Glamorgan County Council Public Analyst found any TOCP in effluent from Maendy.
So much for the stories which have caused so much public concern.
The Tonteg Residents Action Committee and the parish council which visited the Welsh Office were considerably reassured by what they were told but they expressed the view that it would be desirable to erect more substantial fencing to stop children getting into Maendy Quarry. I recognise this concern and my officials have since had discussions about this matter with the Glamorgan County Council, with other local authorities and with the owners of the quarries.
I can report to the House that an assurance has been given by the waste disposal firm that fencing adjacent to the public highway or where public access can be readily gained will be strengthened to a satisfactory standard to prevent all but the most determined from gaining access. Signs clearly indicating the danger which have been repeatedly removed will be replaced. Daily surveillance by one of the security organisations is being arranged, and there will be regular liaison with the local police. The local management of the firm concerned will also make frequent random checks which will be recorded.
Following discussions over a long period with the Glamorgan River Authority the firm is very close to starting construction of a treatment plant to deal with the leachate. When this is in operation it will of course be regularly manned. Glamorgan County Council will


be asking the firm to meet the council in July to review what action has been taken on these undertakings.
In the context of possible hazards to health, suggestions have been made that milk and produce from farms in the area should be banned at least until further investigations have been made. I do not believe that such action is either necessary or warranted. We have no evidence to suggest there is any immediate public health hazard from possible contamination of the food chain.
The veterinary service of MAFF is always ready at the request of farmers and their vets to assist in diagnosing the

cause of animal death. During the last 10 days a farmer in the area has asked MAFF to examine a sheep which died and tests including, as I said earlier, analysis of the tissue are now under way. Some parts of a calf which also died within the last 10 days——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.